Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Limit feeding as a strategy to increase energy efficiency in intensified cow-calf production systems

Limit feeding as a strategy to increase energy efficiency in intensified cow-calf production systems Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Limit feeding as a strategy to increase energy efficiency in intensified cow-calf production systems L.A. Trubenbach,* T.A. Wickersham,* L.N. Bierschwale,* J.C. Morrill,* and J.E. Sawyer* *Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 Thanks are due to the Dr. Kenneth and Caroline Eng Symposium and Texas A&M AgriLife Research for providing funds required to complete this project. Corresponding author: j-sawyer@tamu.edu © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 ABSTRACT: Two experiments were conducted to measure efficiency of energy use in limit-fed cows. In Experiment 1, thirty-two pregnant, crossbred cows were used to examine the effects of dietary energy concentration and intake level on energy utilization and digestion. In a 2×2 factorial treatment arrangement, cows received diets formulated at either 1.54 Mcal NE /kg (H) or 1.08 Mcal NE /kg low-energy (L); amounts of each diet m m were fed at amounts to achieve either 80% (80) or 120% (120) of maintenance energy requirements. Fecal grab samples were collected on d 14, 28, 42, and 56 for determination of energy digestion and ME intake. Acid detergent insoluble ash and bomb th calorimetry were used to estimate fecal energy production. Cow body weight and 12 rib fat thickness were used to estimate body energy, using eight different methods, at the beginning and end of a 56-d feeding period. Energy retention (RE) was calculated as the difference in body energy on d 0 and 56. Heat production (HE) was calculated as the difference in metabolizable energy (ME) intake and RE. Energy digestion increased (P = 0.04) with intake restriction. Cows consuming H tended to have greater (P = 0.08) empty body weight (EBW) gain than cows consuming L, but no difference was observed (P = 0.12) between cows fed 120 compared to 80. Estimates of HE were greater for L than H (P < 0.01) and greater for 120 than 80 (P < 0.01), such that estimated fasting heat 0.75 0.75 production of H (57.2 kcal/kg EBW ) was lower than that of L (73.3 kcal/kg EBW ). In Experiment 2, sixteen ruminally cannulated, crossbred steers were used to examine the effects of dietary energy concentration and intake level on energy digestion. Treatment arrangement and laboratory methods were replicated from Experiment 1. Following a 14- d adaptation period, fecal samples were collected, such that samples were represented in 2-h intervals post feeding across 24-h. Diet intake interactions were observed for Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 nutrient digestibility. Energy digestibility was greater in steers fed H than in L (P < 0.01); however, digestibility of each nutrient increased by approximately 10% in steers fed H80 versus those fed H120 (P ≤ 0.03); nutrient digestibility was similar among levels of intake in steers fed L (P = 0.54). These results suggest that intake restriction may increase diet utilization, and that the magnitude of change may be related to diet energy density. Key words: beef cattle, intake, energy efficiency, heat production, limit-feeding, maintenance requirement Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 INTRODUCTION Intensification of livestock production systems has been proposed as a sustainable solution for meeting global protein needs in the face of decreased land availability for food production (FAO, 2011). Sustainability of intensified cow-calf systems will depend upon control of variable costs; particularly, feed costs associated with cow maintenance. Cow maintenance energy requirements decrease following periods of feed restriction (Koong et al., 1985; Jenkins and Ferrell, 1997; Freetly and Nienaber, 1998); reducing maintenance needs by managing intake may provide an opportunity to reduce costs in intensified systems. Increasing diet energy density may further reduce variable input costs. Increasing energy density of a total mixed ration (TMR) has been shown to increase energy utilization efficiency and/or efficiency of gain (gain:feed) in lambs (Sainz et al., 1995; McLeod and Baldwin, 2000), heifers (Reynolds et al., 1991), compensating beef cows (Swingle et al., 1997; Sawyer et al., 2004) and dairy cows (Wagner and Loosli, 1967; Tyrrell and Moe, 1975). We hypothesize that effects of intake restriction and dietary energy density are additive, such that restricting energy intake and increasing dietary energy density will improve efficiency of energy utilization in beef cows. Our experimental objectives were to: 1) measure effects of manipulating energy intake and dietary energy density on diet utilization and total heat production, and 2) estimate change in maintenance requirements (NE ) as a function of dietary energy density. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 MATERIALS AND METHODS All animal procedures were approved by the Agricultural Animal Care and Use Committee of Texas A&M AgriLife Research and followed guidelines stated in the Guide for the Care and Use of Agriculture Animals in Research and Teaching (FASS, 2010). Experiment 1: Energy utilization in beef cows Thirty-two pregnant, crossbred cows (¾ Angus × ¼ Nellore) either 3 (n=27) or 4 (n=5) years of age were used in an experiment designed to examine the effects of dietary energy concentration and intake level on energy utilization. Cows in mid-gestation (approximately d 155) were stratified by estimated day of gestation (based on palpation) and BW (assessed 35 d prior to the experiment) and randomly assigned to one of eight concrete-surfaced pens, each containing four animals and fitted with four Calan- Broadbent feeders (American Calan, Northwood, NH) and automatic waterers in a covered, open-sided barn. Within each pen, cows were randomly assigned to one of four dietary treatments in a 2 2 factorial treatment arrangement. The factorial consisted of two levels of dietary energy density [high-energy (H; 1.54 Mcal NE /kg) or low-energy (L; 1.08 Mcal NE /kg] and two levels of intake (80% (80) or 120% (120) of maintenance energy requirements; Table 1). Body weight (d -35) and estimated day of gestation were used to calculate energy requirements per NASEM (2016) recommendations and to determine the amount of each diet to provide daily, with respect to treatment (Table 2). Total requirements were calculated as the sum of maintenance and gestation requirements. Maintenance Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 requirements (NE , Mcal/d) were calculated using the equation: 0.75 NE = 0.077 × EBW EBW = SBW × 0.891 SBW = BW × 0.96 Where: EBW = empty body weight, kg SBW = shrunk body weight, kg BW = body weight, kg Requirements for gestation (NE equivalents, Mcal/d) were calculated using the y, equation: (0.03233-0.0000275t)t NE = [CBW × (0.4504 – 0.000766t) × e ] / 1000 * k y m k = NE /ME m m Where: CBW = calf birth weight, 36 kg t = days in gestation, d NE = diet NE concentration, Mcal/kg m m ME = diet ME concentration, Mcal/kg Cows were individually fed once daily at 0730 h; feed refusals, if present, were removed from feed bunks once weekly. At the beginning and end of the feeding period (d 0 and d 56), animals were subjected to a series of measurements including: BW, hip th th height, and ultrasound assessments of rib fat thickness (between 12 and 13 rib), hip fat thickness, intramuscular fat, and ribeye area. Measurements were used for direct Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 comparison and as input variables for approximation of body energy reserves via selected regression models (Table 3). Samples of the diets were collected daily and were composited by week on an equal weight basis for subsequent analyses. Two fecal grab samples were collected from each cow (each separated by 12 h) and immediately frozen on d 14, 28, 42, and 56 for determination of diet digestibility. Acid detergent insoluble ash (ADIA) was used as an internal marker to estimate fecal production for digestion calculations. Laboratory Analysis Feed and fecal samples were processed for laboratory analyses using common procedures. Samples were dried in a forced-air oven for 96 h at 55 C, allowed to air equilibrate, and weighed for determination of partial DM. Samples were subsequently ground through a 1-mm screen using a Wiley mill (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ) and dried for 24 h at 105 C for determination of DM. Organic matter was determined as the loss in dry weight upon combustion in a muffle furnace for 8 h at 450 C. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) analysis was performed using an Ankom Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology Corp., Macedon, NY), and ADIA was determined as the remaining DM upon combustion of ADF residue in a muffle furnace at 450 C. Gross energy (Mcal/kg DM) values were determined by direct calorimetry using a Parr 6300 Calorimeter (Parr Instrument Company, Moline, IL). Digestion coefficients were calculated using the formula [1 – (fecal output of nutrient/intake of nutrient)] 100. Fecal production was calculated by dividing dietary ADIA intake by fecal ADIA concentration. Digestible energy (Mcal/kg DM) was Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 calculated by multiplying observed coefficient of energy digestibility (%) by GE (Mcal/kg DM) of each diet. Metabolizable energy was estimated for each diet by multiplying DE by 0.82 (NASEM, 2016). A calculated measure of BCS was estimated at both the beginning and end of the trial using a regression equation (rBCS; R = 0.996) developed from observations of fat thickness corresponding to observed BCS (Herd and Sprott, 1998): rBCS = -1.2927x + 6.0916x + 2.2114 Where: x = Rib fat thickness (cm) determined by ultrasound Equations published in NASEM (2016) were used, in addition to the previously mentioned regression models, to calculate empty body energy. Body energy (BE) was calculated as: BE (Mcal) = 9.4 TF + 5.7 TP Where: TF = total fat, kg TP = total protein, kg Body components were calculated as: TF = AF EBW TP = AP EBW Where: AF = proportion of empty body fat AP = proportion of empty body protein Body composition was estimated using the following equations: Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 AF = 3.768 rBCS AP = 20.09 – 0.668 rBCS Previously published equations were selected to complement NASEM (2016) estimates of BE. Equations presented by Ferrell and Jenkins (1984) estimated energy content of the empty body of mature beef cows, which is consistent with estimates based on NASEM equations. Alternatively, equations from articles by Gresham et al. (1986) and Wagner et al. (1988) estimated energy in the carcass of mature beef cows; however, estimates of empty body energy and carcass energy were used synonymously as proxies for BE in our calculations. Because cows were stratified by days of gestation, and growth and energy content of the gravid uterus during mid-gestation is likely minimal (Ferrell et al., 1976), they were not explicitly calculated; rather, energy changes related to growth of the gravid uterus and conceptus are implicit in the estimates of the change in BE. Total retained energy and HE were calculated as: RE , Mcal = BE - BE total f i HE , Mcal = MEI - RE total total total Where: BE = total body energy on d 56, Mcal BE = total body energy on d 0, Mcal MEI = total metabolizable energy intake (56 d), Mcal. total Daily RE, HE and MEI were calculated by dividing RE , HE and MEI by total total total 0.75 0.75 56 d. Results for RE, HE and MEI are reported in kcal/kg EBW . Average EBW was 0.75 calculated as [(initial EBW + final EBW) / 2] . Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Maintenance level of intake of metabolizable energy (ME ) was estimated for both H and L using a linear regression of the means of RE on MEI. The estimated regression equations representing each diet were solved for RE = zero; the solution of which represented ME for the respective diet. Fasting heat production was estimated for cows consuming H and L using the linear regression of the means of log (HE) on MEI. The linear functions were solved for MEI = zero; the solution represents the estimate of fasting heat production (FHP) for cows consuming the respective diet. Statistical Analysis All data analyses were analyzed using PROC MIXED procedures in SAS 9.3 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) for a completely randomized design with a 2 X 2 factorial treatment arrangement. The model effects included diet, intake and diet intake interactions. Experiment 2: Intake and digestion Sixteen Angus × Hereford steers (BW = 287 ± 21 kg) fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in an experiment designed to examine the effects of dietary energy concentration and intake level on diet utilization, ruminal pH, VFA concentrations, and gut fill. A 2 2 factorial treatment arrangement was utilized to replicate the treatments administered in Experiment 1. The diet was provided using mean intake levels from 0.75 Experiment 1 (g/EBW ). Intake in Experiment 2 was assigned according to individual 0.75 EBW . Steers were housed in individual stalls within an enclosed, continuously lighted barn, and provided ad libitum access to fresh water throughout the experiment. Steers were fed at 0700 h and feed refusals (if present) were collected daily. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Experimental procedures (Figure 2) were conducted as follows: 1) 14 d for adaptation to treatments, 2) 4 d for measurement of intake and digestion, 3) 1 d for determination of ruminal pH and VFA concentrations, and 4) 1 d for measurement of ruminal fill. Calculations of intake were based on observations from d 14 through d 18. Representative diet samples and feed refusals were obtained daily on d 14 through 17 and frozen at -20 C to correspond with fecal samples collected on d 15 through d 18 and immediately frozen at -20 C for determination of digestions. Fecal samples were collected every 8 h, with the sampling time advanced by 2 h each d, such that samples were represented in 2-h intervals post feeding across 24-h. On d 19 ruminal fermentation was characterized. A suction strainer (Raun and Burroughs, 1962; 19 mm diameter, 1.5 mm mesh) was used to collect ruminal fluid samples prior to feeding (0 h) and at 2, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 16 h after feeding. A portable pH meter with a combined electrode (VWR SympHony, Radnor, PA) was used to measure the pH of each sample at the time of sampling. Sub-samples of ruminal fluid were prepared and frozen at -20 C for subsequent determinations of VFA concentrations. Prior to freezing, 8 mL of rumen fluid was combined with 2 mL of 25% m-phosphoric acid for sample preservation. Samples of ruminal fluid were thawed and centrifuged at 20,000 × g for 20 min. Volatile fatty acid concentrations were measured using gas chromatography as described by Vanzant and Cochran (1994). On d 20, ruminal fill was measured via ruminal evacuation immediately prior to and 4 h post-feeding. Fill is defined in this study as the average of these two measurements. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Diets, feed refusals and fecal samples were processed and assessed using the same procedures as described in Experiment 1 for determination of partial DM, DM, OM, ADF, ADIA, and gross energy. Calculations Digestion coefficients were calculated using the following formula: [1 – (fecal output of nutrient/intake of nutrient)] 100. Fecal production was calculated by dividing fecal ADIA output by the concentration of ADIA in the diet. Statistical Analysis All data analyses were analyzed using PROC MIXED procedures in SAS 9.2 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Model for analysis of fill, intake and digestion responses included diet, intake and diet intake as effects. Responses associated with ruminal fluid (VFA, pH) were analyzed as repeated measures using the same effects, but with the addition of time and its interaction with other model effects. Steer served as the subject of repeated measures and an autoregressive covariance structure was utilized. RESULTS Experiment 1: Energy utilization in beef cows One cow from L120 was removed from the experiment and subsequent statistical analysis due to illness unrelated to treatment. Intakes of DM, DE, ME and NE were greater in cows fed L than in H (P < 0.01), and greater (P < 0.01) in cows fed 120 than in 80 (Table 4; P < 0.01). There were no interactions between energy density and intake level for estimates of digestibility or dietary energy availability (P ≥ 0.33). Digestibility of DM, OM and GE was greater in cows fed H than in L (P < 0.01), but ADF digestibility was greater in L (56.84%) than in Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 H (52.10%; P < 0.01). Digestibility of DM, OM, and GE was greater for cows fed 80 compared to 120% of NASEM requirements (P < 0.04), but digestibility of ADF was not affected by level of energy intake (P ≥ 0.45). By design, observed concentrations of DE, ME and NE per unit of dietary DM were greater in cows fed H than in those fed L (P < 0.01). Observed levels of NEm availability (Mcal/kg) were similar to predicted values for H but were greater than predicted values for L. Due to the effect of intake on GE digestibility, observed concentrations of DE, and thus ME and NE were greater in cows m, fed at 80 compared to those fed at 120% of requirements (P = 0.03). Observed NE intake relative to estimated requirements was lower than predicted in cows fed H (P < 0.05), and greater than expected in cows fed L (P > 0.05). No interactions between diet energy density and level of intake were observed for BW or ultrasound measurements at any time-point (P ≥ 0.12; Table 5). However, BW, 0.75 EBW , hip fat, and rib fat were greater (P ≤ 0.05) and ribeye area tended to be greater (P = 0.08) in cows fed L than in H prior to the start of the experiment. No interactions were observed for changes in these measures (P ≥ 0.26). Empty BW change was not different than zero for L80 (P = 0.21), but was positive for all other treatments (P ≤ 0.05). Cows consuming H tended to have greater EBW gain than cows consuming L (P = 0.08), but it was not measurably greater (P = 0.12) in cows fed 120 compared to 80. Changes in hip fat, rib fat, IMF or REA were not different between H-fed and L- fed fed cows (P ≥ 0.48). Change in hip fat tended to be more negative for cows fed 80 (- 1.25 cm) than for those fed 120 (-0.45 cm; (P = 0.06), but change in rib fat, IMF and REA were minimally affected by level of intake (P ≥ 0.15). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Retained energy was estimated using several different equations, each based on different combinations of estimators (Table 6). Regardless of equation used to estimate RE, no interactions between diet energy density and level of energy intake were observed (P ≥ 0.37), nor did diet impact estimates of RE (P ≥ 0.15). One equation (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1984; Equation 1) estimated greater RE for cows fed 120 than those fed 80 (P = 0.03), while other equations (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1984 Equation 2; Gresham et al., 1986); Wagner et al., 1988) used to estimate RE resulted in a tendency for cows fed 120 to have greater estimates of RE than those fed 80 (P < 0.10). One equation from Wagner et al. (1988; Equation 4) estimated no differences in RE due to diet or intake effects (P > 0.42). The only predictor in this equation is body condition score; based on results for the change in rib fat due to treatment, and our use of rib fat thickness as the predictor of rBCS, the results of this equation are explicable. There were no significant interactions observed between diet energy density and level of intake for HE, regardless of the equation used for estimating RE (P ≥ 0.17: Table 7). All estimated HE values were greater for L than H (P < 0.01) and greater for 120 than 80 (P < 0.01). Experiment 2: Intake and digestion Intakes of DM, ADF, GE, DE, and ME were greater in L than H (P < 0.01) and greater in 120 than 80 (P < 0.01; Table 8). Intake of NE was not different between diets (P = 0.20) but was greater in 120 than 80 (P < 0.01). Diet intake interactions were observed for nutrient digestibility. Digestibility of DM, OM, and GE was greater in steers fed H than in L (P < 0.01); however, digestibility Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 of each nutrient increased by approximately 10% in steers fed H80 versus those fed H120 (P ≤ 0.03) but was similar for both levels of intake in steers fed L (P = 0.54). Digestibility of ADF was lower in steers fed H120 than those fed H80, but was not affected by intake of L (diet intake, P = 0.08). A diet intake interaction was observed for ruminal pH (P = 0.08; Fig. 1). Mean pH was lower (P = 0.03) in steers fed H120 than those fed L120 (6.30 and 6.41, respectively), but was not different (P = 0.56) between diets at low intake (L80 vs. H80). Prior to feeding, pH was greater in H than L (P < 0.01) but was lower 6-12 h post-feeding (P < 0.05). A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal total VFA concentration (P = 0.03; Figure 2). Prior to feeding until 2 h, steers fed L had greater total VFA concentration than those fed H (P < 0.04); however, at h 12, total VFA concentration tended to be greater in H than L (P = 0.08). A diet intake interaction was also observed (P = 0.03). Total ruminal VFA concentration was greatest in L80 (66.5 mM) and lowest in H80 (60.8 mM). A diet × intake interaction was observed for acetate concentration (P < 0.01), with acetate increasing with greater intake of H (H80, 63.3; H120, 65.2 mM), but not differing between intakes of L (L80, 67.8; L120, 67.2 mM). Propionate concentration was greater in H than L (21.0 mM and 19.5 mM, respectively; (P < 0.10) and greater in 80 than 120 (20.9 mM and 19.7 mM, respectively; P < 0.01). No diet × intake or treatment × time interactions were observed for ruminal acetate:propionate ratio (A:P; Figure 3). Ruminal A:P was greater in steers fed L than those fed H (P < 0.01), and greater in 120 than 80 (P < 0.01). Steers fed H80 had the lowest A:P from 6 to 16h post- feeding (P < 0.01). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 DISCUSSION Experimental objectives were to quantify the effects of dietary energy density and intake level on efficiency of energy utilization in limit-fed beef cows, and to evaluate potential sources of observed effects. Experiment 1 was primarily designed to measure energy utilization and to estimate energy retention/loss in the form of heat. Experiment 2 was intended to support and provide explanation for observed results from Experiment 1 for energy utilization, and was designed to evaluate effects of treatments on ruminal digestion, fill (and by proxy, ruminal retention of ingesta) and fermentation parameters . Diet utilization, which is largely driven by extent of ruminal digestion, was greater in H vs. L, by design. Restricting intake improved diet utilization, but this effect was more pronounced in H. Increases in digestibility with intake restriction, specifically in high-energy diets, have been reported extensively in the literature in dairy (Moe et al., 1965; Tyrrell and Moe, 1972; Colucci et al., 1982) and in beef cattle (Galyean et al., 1979; Loerch, 1990; Zinn et al., 1995). Observations from the dairy literature may be more applicable to the limit-fed cows in our study, because effects on energy utilization were measured at similar degrees of intake restriction. When intake is restricted, greater digestibility is often attributed to slower digesta passage rate (Mertens et al., 1987). Decreased rate of passage results in a slower decline in ruminal pH and improved fiber digestion (Mould et al., 1983). Dry matter intake as a percentage of ruminal DM fill decreased with intake restriction in both diets (92 to 83 % in H; 120 to 90% in L) in Experiment 2, suggesting an increase in ruminal retention time with lower intake. The magnitude of this difference was greater in L than in H, which is consistent with the larger increase in DMI for the L diet necessary to achieve similar Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 programmed energy intake. This effect may also explain the larger departure from expected values of digestibility and therefore energy availability for the L than the H diets. This difference, and the resulting underestimation of the energy value of the L diet, led to greater observed levels of NEm intake relative to targets in L- compared to H-fed cows. Although ruminal retention time may have increased to a greater degree in steers fed L compared to those fed H, digestibility was less affected by intake level of L in both experiments. Changes in passage rate caused by intake restriction could have interacted with potential rate of degradation for each diet, resulting in pronounced changes in digestibility in H without a measurable change in L. It is also possible that maximal extent of digestion was approached in L, thus changes in passage rate would have more limited effects digestibility. Effects on passage rate are not likely to be solely responsible for the changes in apparent energy availability observed in these studies. In Exp. 2, the rate of decline in ruminal pH from greater intake was more severe in H than L, falling below 6.0 in H120. Additionally, ADF digestibility was reduced with greater intake of H in Exp. 2, supporting the conjecture that reduced fiber digestion accounts for a portion of the reduction in energy availability often observed with increasing intake (Mould et al., 1983). Intake restriction increased diet digestibility, with the magnitude of difference being greater in the high-energy diet than in the low-energy diet, which is consistent with the dairy literature (Brown, 1966; Tyrrell and Moe, 1974; Llamas-Lamas and Combs, 1991). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 In cows fed H80, BW gain was positive, the observed changes in most measures of fat were not different from zero, and all estimates of RE were either positive or not different from zero. Differences in energy retention estimated from equations from the literature correspond to those calculated using NASEM (2016) equations, and the rank of treatment means is generally consistent across all equations (Table 9), suggesting that energy intake was sufficient to achieve maintenance, although energy intake was only 76% the recommended level (6.53 Mcal NE /d). Because changes in BW, measures of body fat, and thus estimates of RE were minimally affected by intake level, it is possible that energy requirements were reduced due to a shift in equilibrium FHP, similar to that described by Freetly and Nienaber (1998). Energy restriction is known to decrease splanchnic tissue mass and subsequent heat production (McLeod and Baldwin, 2000; Camacho et al., 2014), increasing the efficiency of energy use (Freetly and Nienaber, 1998; Freetly et al., 2000, 2008) in sheep and mature cows. Similar effects of restricting intake have been demonstrated in growing cattle; Birkelo et al. (1991) observed a 7 % reduction in FHP and a 14 % reduction in ME with intake restriction from 2.2 to 1.2 times maintenance. Values for ME were estimated (Figure 4) for each diet. Estimated 0.75 ME for H (115 kcal/kg EBW ) was lower than predicted values (141 kcal/kg 0.75 0.75 EBW ), but was greater than predicted (186 vs. 158 kcal/kg EBW ) for L. The fact that ME is greater for L than H is reasonable, as the efficiency of ME use is known to be greater in high-energy diets than in low-energy diets (NASEM, 2016); however, the degree by which ME of H was shifted (18%), relative to NASEM (2016) estimates, is notable. This observation suggests an overestimation of ME requirements in cows consuming a high-energy diet by the NASEM (2016). Freetly and Nienaber (1998) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 reported a 22% decrease in ME requirements when intake was restricted by 65% in mature cows, which is similar to our observed decrease in H. Order of HE estimates across treatments was similar across all equations, suggesting that the particular equation used for estimation of body energy is not necessarily of great importance; percent decrease in heat production from L to H (Table 10) ranged from 23.4 to 27.5%. Similarly, the percent reduction in heat energy associated with intake restriction is similar across equations (21.8 to 24.7%). The effects of dietary energy density and intake on heat production were additive, decreasing approximately 43% from L120 to H80 across all equations. Heat production occurs in a nonlinear function of MEI; therefore, log transformation of heat production allows for a meaningful linear regression of HE on 0.75 MEI (Garrett, 1987; Figure 5). Estimated FHP of of cows fed H (57.2 kcal/kg EBW ) 0.75 was lower than that of cows fed L (73.3 kcal/kg EBW ), consistent with observations by Blaxter (1962), who found that FHP decreases as energy density increases in the diet. Estimates of FHP in cows fed L or H were 35% and 17%, respectively, lower than 0.75 NASEM (2016) estimates (88.3 kcal/kg EBW ) for a mid-gestation cow, and were also 0.75 lower than the NASEM (2016) assumption of basal metabolism (77 kcal/kg EBW ). Restricted intake and subsequently reduced metabolic load may have altered the size of metabolically active organs (Reynolds et al., 1991; McLeod and Baldwin, 2000), resulting in reduced energy requirements. Using these estimates of FHP and ME , a graphic illustration of NE, following that of Garrett (1987), was produced (Figure 6). This illustrates both the decrease in FHP and the increased efficiency with which ME is utilized in H relative to L. The slope of RE Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 on MEI represents the efficiency of ME use for energy retention below (k ) and above (k ) maintenance intake. Our estimates of ME intake were calculated by using the DE:ME conversion rate of 82% (NASEM, 2016), which has been widely debated (BCNRM, 2016). Hales et al. (2012, 2013, and 2014) observed DE:ME conversions much greater than 82% (89.3 to 95.0%) in growing cattle fed high-energy diets, which is likely attributed to reduced methane production. If methane production was less than expected in cattle fed H, then DE:ME was greater than estimated, causing ME intake and maintenance requirements to be underestimated. However, this conversion would need to be almost 102% to achieve maintenance in cows fed H80, which suggests that, even if DE:ME were underpredicted, the discrepancy is likely not adequate to provide the sole explanation of observed decreases in heat production. Mills et al. (2001) proposed that the proportion of ingested energy lost as methane actually increases with intake restriction, which would result in overestimated dietary ME (rather than underestimated) values in feed restricted animals. Furthermore, Vermorel and Bickel (1980) suggested that methane losses are likely greater in mature animals than in young, growing animals. If DE:ME was lower that 82%, then our estimates of heat production would be overestimated, further supporting the hypothesis that maintenance requirements decrease with restricted intake of high- energy diets. Overall, intake restriction can improve diet utilization, but the magnitude of change depends on diet energy density. This relationship should be quantified in diets fed at intake levels that are applicable to gestating beef cows. Diet had minimal effects on estimates of RE, but cows fed H had lower HE. Increasing intake increased RE; however, Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 even in cows fed 80, RE was not negative. Increasing intake also increased HE, which is consistent with our hypothesis that restricting intake increases energy efficiency of diet utilization and reduces maintenance requirements. A model accommodating these dynamic adjustments will be necessary to the development optimal feed delivery strategies, but these results suggest that opportunities exist to strategically enhance efficiencies in intensively managed systems. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 LITERATURE CITED Armstrong, D. G., and K. L. Blaxter. 1961. The utilization of the energy of carbohydrates by ruminants. Eur. Assoc. Anim. Prod. 10:187. Birkelo, C. P., D. E. Johnson, and H. P. Phetteplace. 1991. Maintenance requirements of beef cattle as affected by season on different planes of nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 69:1214-1222. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6931214x Blaxter, K. L. 1962. The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants. Hutchinson, London. Brown, L. D. 1966. Influence of intake on feed utilization. J. Dairy Sci. 49:223. Comparison of real-time ultrasound and other live measures to carcass measures as predictors of beef cow energy stores. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3908-3916. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(66)87834-7 Camacho, L. E., C. O. Lemley, M. L. Van Emon, J. S. Caton, K. C. Swanson, and K. A. Vonnahme. 2014. Effects of maternal nutrient restriction followed by realimentation during early and midgestation on beef cows. I. Maternal performance and organ weights at different stages of gestation. J. Anim. Sci. 92:520-529. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7017 Colucci, P. E., L. E. Chase, and P. J. Van Soest. 1982. Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of particulate passage in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 65:1445– 1456. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0189 Federation of Animal Science Societies. 2010. In: ADSA, ASAS, and PSA, editors, Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in research and teaching. Ferrell, C. L., W. N. Garrett, and N. Hinman. 1976. Growth, development and Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 composition of the udder and gravid uterus of beef heifers during pregnancy. J. Anim. Sci. 42:1477-1489. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1976.4261477x Ferrell, C. L., and T. G. Jenkins. 1984. Relationships among various body components of mature cows. J. Anim. Sci. 58:222-233. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1984.581222x Freetly, H. C., and J. A. Nienaber. 1998. Efficiency of energy and nitrogen loss and gain in mature cows. J. Anim. Sci. 76:896-905. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.763896x Freetly, H. C., C. L. Ferrell, and T. G. Jenkins. 2000. Timing of realimentation of mature cows that were feed-restricted during pregnancy influences calf birth weights and growth rates. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2790-2796. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.78112790x Freetly, H. C., J. A Nienaber, and T. Brown-Brandl. 2006. Changes in heat production by mature cows after changes in feeding level. J. Anim. Sci. 84:1429-1438. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.8461429x Freetly, H. C., J. A Nienaber, and T. Brown-Brandl. 2008. Partitioning of energy in pregnant beef cows during nutritionally induced body weight fluctuation. J. Anim. Sci. 86:370-377. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0250 Galyean, M. L., D. G. Wagner and F. N. Owens. 1979. Level of feed intake and site and extent of digestion of high concentrate diets by steers. J. Anim. Sci. 49:199. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1979.491199x Garrett, W.N. 1987. Relationship between energy metabolism and the amounts of protein and fat deposited in growing cattle. Proc. Energy Metab. 10:98-101. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Gresham, J. D., J. W. Holloway, W. T. Butts, and J. R. McCurley. 1986. Prediction of mature cow carcass composition from live animal measurements. J. Anim Sci. 63:1041-1048. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6341041x Hales, K. E., T. M. Brown-Brandl, and H. C. Freetly. 2014. Effects of decreased dietary roughage concentration on energy metabolism and nutrient balance in finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 92:264–271. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6994 Hales, K. E., N. A. Cole, and J. C. MacDonald. 2012. Effects of corn processing method and dietary inclusion of wet distillers grains with solubles on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 90:3174– 3185. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4441 Hales, K. E., N. A. Cole, and J. C. MacDonald. 2013. Effects of increasing concentrations of wet distillers grains with solubles in steam-flaked, corn-based diets on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 91:819–828. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5418 Herd, D. B., and L. R. Sprott. 1998. Body condition, nutrition and reproduction of beef cows. Texas Agrilife Extension Service, College Station, TX. Retrieved from: http://animalscience-old.tamu.edu/beef-skillathon/pdf/nutrition-body-condition- nutrition.pdf. p. 4. Holmes, C. W., N. A. McLean and K. J. Lockyer. 1978. Changes in the rate of heat production of calves during grazing and eating. N. Zeal. J. Agr. Res. 21:107-112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1978.10427388 Horn, G. W., and F. T. McCollum. 1987. Energy supplementation of grazing ruminants. In: Proc. Graz. Livest. Nutr. Conf., Jackson Hole, WY. p. 125-136. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Jenkins, T. G., and C. L. Ferrell. 1997. Changes in proportions of empty body depots and constituents for nine breeds of cattle under various feed availabilities. J. Anim. Sci. 75:95-104. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.75195x Koong, L. J., C. L. Ferrell, and J. A. Nienaber. 1985. Assessment of interrelationships among levels of intake and production, organ size and fasting heat production in growing animals. J. Nutr. 115(10):1383-1390. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/115.10.1383 Llamas-Lamas, G., and D. K. Combs. 1991. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio and intake level on utilization of early vegetative alfalfa silage by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 74:526–536. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78200-3 Loerch, S. C. 1990. Effects of feeding growing cattle high concentrate diets at a restricted intake on feedlot performance. J. Anim. Sci. 68:3086. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.68103086x McLeod, K. R., and R. L. Baldwin. 2000. Effects of diet forage:concentrate ratio and metabolizable energy intake on visceral organ growth and in vitro oxidative capacity of gut tissues in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 78:760-770. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.783760x Mertens, D. R. 1987. Predicting intake and digestibility using mathematical models of ruminal function. J. Anim. Sci. 64: 1548-1558. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.6451548x Mills, J. A., J. Dijkstra, A. Bannink, S. B. Cammell, E. Kebreab, and J. France. 2001. A Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating dairy cow: model development, evaluation, and application. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1584-1597. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7961584x Moe, P. W., J. T. Reid, and H. F. Tyrrell. 1965. Effect of level of intake on digestibility of dietary energy by high producing cows. J. Dairy Sci. 48:1053–1061. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(65)88391-6 Mould, F. L., and E. R. Ørskov. 1983. Manipulation of rumen fluid pH and its influence on cellulosis in sacco, dry matter degradation and the rumen microflora of sheep offered either hay or concentrate. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 10:1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(83)90002-0 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19014. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2014. United States Department of Agriculture Economics, Statistics, and Market Information System. Cornell University, Ithica, NY. Retrieved from: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1 Reynolds, C. K., H. F. Tyrrell, and P. J. Reynolds. 1991. Effects of diet forage-to- concentrate ratio and intake on energy metabolism in growing beef heifers: whole body energy and nitrogen balance and visceral heat production. J. Nutr. 121:994- 1003. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/121.7.994 Sainz, R. D., F. De la Torre and J. W. Oltjen. 1995. Compensatory growth and carcass Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 quality in growth-restricted and refed beef steers. J. Anim. Sci, 73:2971-2979. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73102971x Sawyer, J. E., C. P Mathis and B. Davis. 2004. Effects of feeding strategy and age on live animal performance, carcass characteristics, and economics of short-term feeding programs for culled beef cows. J. Anim. Sci, 83:3646-3653. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.82123646x Swingle, R. S., C. B. Roubicek, R. A. Wooten, J. A. Marchello, and F. D. Dryden. 1979. Realimentation of cull range cows. I. Effect of final body condition and dietary energy level on rate, efficiency and composition of gains. J. Anim. Sci, 48:913- 918. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1979.484913x Tyrrell, H. F. and P. W. Moe. 1972. Net energy values for lactation of a high and low concentrate ration containing corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 55: 1106-1112. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(72)85632-7 Tyrrell, H. F. and P. W. Moe. 1974. Net energy value of a corn and a barley ration for lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 57: 451-458. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(74)84913-1 Tyrrell, H. F., and P. W. Moe. 1975. Effect of intake on digestive efficiency. J. Dairy Sci. 58:1151–1163. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(75)84694-7 Vermorel, M., and H. Bickel. 1980. Utilisation of feed energy by growing ruminants. Ann. Zootech. 29:127–143. Wagner, D. G., and J. K. Loosli. 1967. Studies on the energy requirements of high- producing dairy cows. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Memoir 400:1-40. Wagner, J. J., K. S. Lusby, J. W. Oltjen, J. Rakestraw, R. P. Wettemann, and L. E. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Walters. 1988. Carcass composition in mature hereford cows: Estimation and effect on daily metabolizable energy requirement during winter. J. Anim. Sci. 66:603-612. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.663603x Zinn, R. A., C. F. Adam, and M. S. Tamayo. 1995. Interaction of feed intake on comparative ruminal and total tract digestion of dryrolled and steam-flaked corn. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1239. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7351239x Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 1. Formulated ingredient and nutrient composition of treatment diets High Low Ingredient Energy Energy % As fed Wheat straw 34.52 64.08 Corn 29.46 0.00 Distillers’ grain 27.46 27.36 Urea 1.10 1.10 Molasses 5.00 5.00 Mineral 2.46 2.46 Diet components DM basis CP, % 16.3 14.4 TDN, % 68.0 54.0 ME, Mcal/kg 2.45 1.94 NE , Mcal/kg 1.54 1.08 NE , Mcal/kg 0.95 0.53 According to NRC model estimates Dry matter content: high energy, 83.4%; low energy, 83.1%. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 2. Targeted intake of treatment diets and estimates of requirements per NRC (2000) High energy diet Low energy diet Daily Intake 80 120 80 120 As fed, kg 4.40 6.39 6.49 9.52 Dry matter, kg 3.91 5.68 5.79 8.49 DE, Mcal 11.68 16.97 13.70 20.09 ME, Mcal 9.58 13.92 11.23 16.47 NE , Mcal 6.02 8.74 6.25 9.17 Requirements, Mcal NE /d 7.53 7.28 7.81 7.64 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 3. Multiple regression coefficients of selected models used for estimating energy contained in the empty body or carcass of beef cows Independent variables 2 2 Model Type β BW BF BF BF HH WH WT:HH BCS EBW R 0 c m m Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) Empty Body 73.3 2.9 422.0 -2.7 0.87 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) Empty Body -333.0 4.6 0.69 Gresham et al. (1986) Carcass -733.7 1.8 77.7 -1.8 2.5 0.87 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) Carcass -487.2 1.3 78.4 0.90 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) Carcass -661.5 2.7 0.81 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) Carcass -756.7 361.5 0.83 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) Carcass -221.5 128.2 0.85 Mcal BW = live body weight (kg); BF = back fat (cm); BF = back fat (mm); HH = hip height (cm); WH = wither height (cm, estimated c m as HH - 5); BCS = body condition score (1 to 9 scale, 1 = emaciated and 9 = very obese); WT:HH = ratio of WT:HH, kg:cm; EBW = empty body weight (kg) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 4. Apparent nutrient digestibility and energy availability of high- and low-energy density diets fed to beef cows in confinement at 80% or 120% of NASEM (2016) predicted energy requirement High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Item 80 120 80 120 intake 0.101 DMI, kg/d 3.74 5.43 5.49 7.84 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.75 DMI, g/kg EBW 44.62 63.98 63.09 87.78 1.33 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.05 Digestibility, % DM 65.9 62.8 58.9 57.2 1.44 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.40 OM 69.1 66.5 63.8 62.4 1.45 < 0.01 0.01 0.43 ADF 49.9 52.8 58.1 57.7 2.25 < 0.01 0.45 0.33 GE 68.3 65.9 63. 61.5 1.63 < 0.01 0.04 0.74 Energy availability, Mcal/kg GE 4.30 4.26 DE 2.94 2.83 2.69 2.62 0.062 < 0.01 0.03 0.74 ME 2.41 2.32 2.21 2.15 0.051 < 0.01 0.03 0.74 NE 1.53 1.45 1.35 1.29 0.032 < 0.01 0.03 0.74 0.75 Energy intake, kcal/kg EBW 131.23 181.42 170.34 230.27 3.604 DE < 0.01 < 0.01 0.16 107.61 148.76 139.68 188.83 2.955 ME < 0.01 < 0.01 0.29 NE 68.21 92.86 85.21 113.50 1.805 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.39 NE intake, % requirement 75.83 108.24 94.88 132.70 Observed via feed and fecal nutrient analysis Formulated NEm concentrations for high- and low-energy diets were 1.54 and 1.08 Mcal/kg, respectively Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 5. Body measurements of beef cows in confinement fed high- and low-energy density diets at 80% or 120% of NASEM (2016) predicted energy requirement High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Item 80 120 80 120 intake Initial measurements EBW, kg 370 358 388 393 9.2 < 0.01 0.65 0.34 0.75 EBW , kg 84.44 82.31 87.49 88.25 1.563 < 0.01 0.74 0.37 Hip fat, mm 4.19 3.24 6.19 5.27 1.067 0.05 0.34 0.99 Rib fat, mm 2.64 3.05 4.79 5.27 0.976 0.02 0.62 0.97 Intramuscular fat, % 2.91 2.47 2.94 2.90 0.262 0.35 0.33 0.43 Ribeye area, cm 57.44 64.52 64.52 67.58 3.570 0.08 0.08 0.48 Final measurements EBW, kg 387 393 401 408 11.4 0.19 0.54 0.91 0.75 EBW , kg 87.30 88.21 89.54 90.84 1.900 0.17 0.48 0.96 Hip fat, mm 2.79 3.18 5.08 4.89 0.931 0.03 0.91 0.75 Rib fat, mm 2.48 2.98 4.16 5.21 1.029 0.04 0.39 0.76 Intramuscular fat, % 2.92 2.54 2.70 3.05 0.246 0.52 0.93 0.12 Ribeye area, cm 57.67 66.37 62.82 67.11 3.483 0.32 0.04 0.45 Change in measurements EBW, kg 17 35 12 15 6.9 0.08 0.12 0.27 0.75 EBW , kg 2.86 5.90 2.05 2.59 1.164 0.07 0.11 0.26 * * * Hip fat, mm -1.40 -0.06 -1.11 -0.39 0.580 0.97 0.06 0.56 * * * * Rib fat, mm -0.16 -0.06 -0.06 -0.02 0.356 0.48 0.25 0.39 * * * * Intramuscular fat, % 0.02 0.07 -0.24 -0.14 0.150 0.55 0.15 0.26 2 * * * * Ribeye area, cm -3.44 1.85 -1.69 -1.20 2.215 0.77 0.20 0.29 Formulated NEm concentrations for high- and low-energy diets were 1.54 and 1.08 Mcal/kg, respectively Means with asterisk are not different from zero (P > 0.05) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 6. Estimates of retained energy (RE) in confined beef cows fed high- and low-energy density diets at 80% or 120% of NASEM (2016) predicted energy requirement High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Model 80 120 80 120 intake NASEM -1.77 8.13 -8.02 0.55 5.28 0.17 0.07 0.89 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) 4.57 17.10 -0.52 8.04 5.09 0.15 0.03 0.68 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) 7.92 24.08 6.69 12.37 6.06 0.27 0.06 0.37 Gresham et al. (1986) 1.70 10.15 -4.18 3.17 5.01 0.18 0.10 0.90 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) 1.41 7.38 -2.39 2.57 3.25 0.17 0.08 0.87 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) 5.48 16.67 4.63 8.56 4.20 0.27 0.06 0.37 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) 5.62 16.59 4.53 8.56 4.17 0.26 0.06 0.38 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) -1.97 -0.92 -7.52 -2.47 4.68 0.43 0.49 0.65 a 0.75 -1 -0.75 kcal/d/EBW , Calculated as RE • d •EBW , where d = 56 days Formulated NEm concentrations for high- and low-energy diets were 1.54 and 1.08 Mcal/kg, respectively Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 7. Estimates of heat production (HE) in confined beef cows fed high- and low-energy density diets at 80% or 120% of NRC (2016) predicted energy requirement High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Model 80 120 80 120 intake NASEM 109.39 140.63 147.69 188.28 5.48 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.37 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) 103.04 131.66 140.20 180.79 5.81 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.28 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) 99.70 124.68 132.99 176.46 7.39 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.20 Gresham et al. (1986) 105.91 138.61 143.86 185.66 5.11 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.35 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) 106.21 141.38 142.07 186.26 3.86 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.23 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) 102.13 132.09 135.05 180.26 5.72 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.17 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) 101.99 132.17 135.15 180.27 5.68 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.17 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) 109.58 149.68 147.20 191.29 4.29 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.62 a 0.75 0.75 kcal/d/EBW , Calculated as (ME - RE) / d / EBW , where d = 52 days Formulated NEm concentrations for high- and low-energy diets were 1.54 and 1.08 Mcal/kg, respectively Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 8. Effect of diet energy density and level of intake on digestibility and ruminal fill in ruminally cannulated steers High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Item 80 120 80 120 intake b c d e DMI, kg/d 2.82 4.22 3.96 5.88 0.135 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 0.75 b d c e DMI, g/kg EBW 44.18 66.64 59.74 75.10 1.622 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 Digestibility, % b c c c DM 68.1 60.5 57.5 59.1 1.6 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 b c c c OM 71.7 64.0 61.3 63.4 1.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b c b b ADF 49.7 44.0 50.9 52.3 1.8 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 b c c c GE 68.6 61.1 59.0 60.7 1.7 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 Energy availability, Mcal/kg GE 4.31 4.27 b c c c DE 2.96 2.63 2.52 2.60 0.071 <0.01 0.11 0.01 b c c c ME 2.42 2.06 2.06 2.13 0.058 <0.01 0.11 0.01 b c c c NE 1.54 1.30 1.21 1.27 0.053 <0.01 0.11 0.01 Energy Intake, Mcad/d GE 12.13 18.09 16.31 20.75 0.593 <0.01 <0.01 0.22 DE 8.34 11.09 9.63 12.60 0.512 0.02 <0.01 0.85 ME 6.84 9.10 7.89 10.34 0.420 0.02 <0.01 0.85 NE 4.34 5.48 4.64 6.18 0.305 0.20 <0.01 0.51 Ruminal DM fill, kg 3.39 4.57 4.41 4.92 0.276 0.02 0.01 0.24 Observed via feed and fecal analysis b,c,d,e Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ (P < 0.05) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 9. Effect of increasing dietary energy density and restricting intake on retained energy Factor Means Difference b c H L 80 120 Diet Intake NRC 3.18 -3.73 4.90 4.34 6.91 9.27 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) 10.84 3.76 2.02 12.57 7.08 10.55 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) 16.00 9.53 7.30 18.23 6.47 10.92 Gresham et al. (1986) 5.93 -0.51 -1.24 6.66 6.43 7.90 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) 4.39 0.09 -0.49 4.97 4.30 5.47 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) 11.08 6.60 5.06 12.62 4.48 7.56 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) 11.10 6.54 5.07 12.57 4.56 7.50 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) -1.44 -4.99 -4.74 -1.69 3.55 3.05 Means 7.64 2.16 2.24 8.78 5.47 7.78 a 0.75 kcal/kg EBW Calculated as H - L Calculated as 120 - 80 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 10. Effect of increasing dietary energy density and restricting intake on daily heat production Factor Means Percentage change b c H L 80 120 Diet Intake 125.0 168.0 128.5 164.5 NRC -25.6% -21.8% 117.4 160.5 121.6 156.2 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) -26.9% -22.2% 112.2 154.7 116.3 150.6 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) -27.5% -22.7% 122.3 164.8 124.9 162.1 Gresham et al. (1986) -25.8% -23.0% 123.8 164.2 124.1 163.8 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) -24.6% -24.2% 117.1 157.7 118.6 156.2 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) -25.7% -24.1% 117.1 157.7 118.6 156.2 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) -25.8% -24.1% 129.6 169.2 128.4 170.5 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) -23.4% -24.7% Means 120.6 162.1 122.6 160.0 -25.7% -23.4% Mcal, 56 d Calculated as 100% × [(H - L) / L] Calculated as 100% × [(80 - 120) / 120] Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Figure 1. Ruminal pH of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE m m requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE requirements (L120). m m Values are means ± SEM (0.079); n = 16. A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal pH. Ruminal pH was greater in steers fed H than those fed L prior to feeding, but lower from 6 to 12 h after feeding. A diet intake interaction (P = 0.09) was also observed. Ruminal pH was lowest in H120 (6.30) and greatest in L120 (6.41). Figure 2. Ruminal VFA concentrations of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE m m m requirements (L120). Values are means ± SEM (4.400); n = 16. A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal total VFA concentration. Prior to feeding until 2 h, steers fed L had greater total VFA concentration (P < 0.04) than those fed H; however, at h 12, total VFA concentration tended to be greater (P = 0.08) in H than L. A diet intake interaction (P = 0.03) was also observed. Total ruminal VFA concentration was greatest in L80 (66.5 mM) and lowest in H80 (60.8 mM). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 H80 6.8 H120 L80 6.6 L120 6.4 6.2 5.8 0 2 4 6 9 12 16 Time after feeding, h Figure 1. Ruminal pH of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE m m requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE requirements (L120). m m Values are means ± SEM (0.079); n = 16. A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal pH. Ruminal pH was greater in steers fed H than those fed L prior to feeding, but lower from 6 to 12 h after feeding. A diet intake interaction (P = 0.09) was also observed. Ruminal pH was lowest in H120 (6.30) and greatest in L120 (6.41). Accepted Manuscript pH Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 H80 H120 L80 L120 0 2 4 6 9 12 16 Time after feeding, h Figure 2. Ruminal VFA concentrations of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE m m m requirements (L120). Values are means ± SEM (4.400); n = 16. A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal total VFA concentration. Prior to feeding until 2 h, steers fed L had greater total VFA concentration (P < 0.04) than those fed H; however, at h 12, total VFA concentration tended to be greater (P = 0.08) in H than L. A diet intake interaction (P = 0.03) was also observed. Total ruminal VFA concentration was greatest in L80 (66.5 mM) and lowest in H80 (60.8 mM). Accepted Manuscript Total VFA, mM Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 4.2 3.7 3.2 2.7 H80 H120 2.2 L80 1.7 L120 1.2 0 2 4 6 9 12 16 Time after feeding, h Figure 3. Ruminal acetate:propionate ratio (A:P) of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE m m m requirements (L120). Values are means ± SEM (0.133); n = 16. Ruminal A:P was greater in steers fed L than those fed H (P < 0.01) and greater in steers fed 120 than those fed 80 (P < 0.01). Accepted Manuscript Acetate:Propionate ratio Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 10.0 y = 0.2408x - 27.688 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 y = 0.1742x - 32.349 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 -8.0 -10.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 0.75 MEI, kcal/EBW /d Figure 4. Means regression of retained energy on metabolizable energy intake of cows fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements m m m (L80), or L offered at 120% NE requirements (L120) Accepted Manuscript 0.75 RE, kcal/EBW /d Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 2.3 2.25 y = 0.0022x + 1.8653 2.2 2.15 2.1 y = 0.0026x + 1.7572 2.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0.75 MEI, kcal/EBW /d Figure 5. Means regression of heat production (logarithmic transformation) on metabolizable energy intake of cows fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy m m diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE requirements (L120) m m Accepted Manuscript 0.75 log (HE), kcal/EBW /d Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 y = 0.2408x - 27.69 y = 0.1748x - 32.458 -10 y = 0.4972x - 57.174 -20 -30 y = 0.3949x - 73.333 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0.75 MEI, kcal/EBW /d Figure 6. Estimated net energy delivery of treatment high (H) and low (L) energy diets Accepted Manuscript 0.75 RE, kcal/EBW /d http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Translational Animal Science Oxford University Press

Limit feeding as a strategy to increase energy efficiency in intensified cow-calf production systems

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/limit-feeding-as-a-strategy-to-increase-energy-efficiency-in-HBWB9ruw9p

References (86)

Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
eISSN
2573-2102
DOI
10.1093/tas/txz039
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Limit feeding as a strategy to increase energy efficiency in intensified cow-calf production systems L.A. Trubenbach,* T.A. Wickersham,* L.N. Bierschwale,* J.C. Morrill,* and J.E. Sawyer* *Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 Thanks are due to the Dr. Kenneth and Caroline Eng Symposium and Texas A&M AgriLife Research for providing funds required to complete this project. Corresponding author: j-sawyer@tamu.edu © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 ABSTRACT: Two experiments were conducted to measure efficiency of energy use in limit-fed cows. In Experiment 1, thirty-two pregnant, crossbred cows were used to examine the effects of dietary energy concentration and intake level on energy utilization and digestion. In a 2×2 factorial treatment arrangement, cows received diets formulated at either 1.54 Mcal NE /kg (H) or 1.08 Mcal NE /kg low-energy (L); amounts of each diet m m were fed at amounts to achieve either 80% (80) or 120% (120) of maintenance energy requirements. Fecal grab samples were collected on d 14, 28, 42, and 56 for determination of energy digestion and ME intake. Acid detergent insoluble ash and bomb th calorimetry were used to estimate fecal energy production. Cow body weight and 12 rib fat thickness were used to estimate body energy, using eight different methods, at the beginning and end of a 56-d feeding period. Energy retention (RE) was calculated as the difference in body energy on d 0 and 56. Heat production (HE) was calculated as the difference in metabolizable energy (ME) intake and RE. Energy digestion increased (P = 0.04) with intake restriction. Cows consuming H tended to have greater (P = 0.08) empty body weight (EBW) gain than cows consuming L, but no difference was observed (P = 0.12) between cows fed 120 compared to 80. Estimates of HE were greater for L than H (P < 0.01) and greater for 120 than 80 (P < 0.01), such that estimated fasting heat 0.75 0.75 production of H (57.2 kcal/kg EBW ) was lower than that of L (73.3 kcal/kg EBW ). In Experiment 2, sixteen ruminally cannulated, crossbred steers were used to examine the effects of dietary energy concentration and intake level on energy digestion. Treatment arrangement and laboratory methods were replicated from Experiment 1. Following a 14- d adaptation period, fecal samples were collected, such that samples were represented in 2-h intervals post feeding across 24-h. Diet intake interactions were observed for Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 nutrient digestibility. Energy digestibility was greater in steers fed H than in L (P < 0.01); however, digestibility of each nutrient increased by approximately 10% in steers fed H80 versus those fed H120 (P ≤ 0.03); nutrient digestibility was similar among levels of intake in steers fed L (P = 0.54). These results suggest that intake restriction may increase diet utilization, and that the magnitude of change may be related to diet energy density. Key words: beef cattle, intake, energy efficiency, heat production, limit-feeding, maintenance requirement Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 INTRODUCTION Intensification of livestock production systems has been proposed as a sustainable solution for meeting global protein needs in the face of decreased land availability for food production (FAO, 2011). Sustainability of intensified cow-calf systems will depend upon control of variable costs; particularly, feed costs associated with cow maintenance. Cow maintenance energy requirements decrease following periods of feed restriction (Koong et al., 1985; Jenkins and Ferrell, 1997; Freetly and Nienaber, 1998); reducing maintenance needs by managing intake may provide an opportunity to reduce costs in intensified systems. Increasing diet energy density may further reduce variable input costs. Increasing energy density of a total mixed ration (TMR) has been shown to increase energy utilization efficiency and/or efficiency of gain (gain:feed) in lambs (Sainz et al., 1995; McLeod and Baldwin, 2000), heifers (Reynolds et al., 1991), compensating beef cows (Swingle et al., 1997; Sawyer et al., 2004) and dairy cows (Wagner and Loosli, 1967; Tyrrell and Moe, 1975). We hypothesize that effects of intake restriction and dietary energy density are additive, such that restricting energy intake and increasing dietary energy density will improve efficiency of energy utilization in beef cows. Our experimental objectives were to: 1) measure effects of manipulating energy intake and dietary energy density on diet utilization and total heat production, and 2) estimate change in maintenance requirements (NE ) as a function of dietary energy density. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 MATERIALS AND METHODS All animal procedures were approved by the Agricultural Animal Care and Use Committee of Texas A&M AgriLife Research and followed guidelines stated in the Guide for the Care and Use of Agriculture Animals in Research and Teaching (FASS, 2010). Experiment 1: Energy utilization in beef cows Thirty-two pregnant, crossbred cows (¾ Angus × ¼ Nellore) either 3 (n=27) or 4 (n=5) years of age were used in an experiment designed to examine the effects of dietary energy concentration and intake level on energy utilization. Cows in mid-gestation (approximately d 155) were stratified by estimated day of gestation (based on palpation) and BW (assessed 35 d prior to the experiment) and randomly assigned to one of eight concrete-surfaced pens, each containing four animals and fitted with four Calan- Broadbent feeders (American Calan, Northwood, NH) and automatic waterers in a covered, open-sided barn. Within each pen, cows were randomly assigned to one of four dietary treatments in a 2 2 factorial treatment arrangement. The factorial consisted of two levels of dietary energy density [high-energy (H; 1.54 Mcal NE /kg) or low-energy (L; 1.08 Mcal NE /kg] and two levels of intake (80% (80) or 120% (120) of maintenance energy requirements; Table 1). Body weight (d -35) and estimated day of gestation were used to calculate energy requirements per NASEM (2016) recommendations and to determine the amount of each diet to provide daily, with respect to treatment (Table 2). Total requirements were calculated as the sum of maintenance and gestation requirements. Maintenance Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 requirements (NE , Mcal/d) were calculated using the equation: 0.75 NE = 0.077 × EBW EBW = SBW × 0.891 SBW = BW × 0.96 Where: EBW = empty body weight, kg SBW = shrunk body weight, kg BW = body weight, kg Requirements for gestation (NE equivalents, Mcal/d) were calculated using the y, equation: (0.03233-0.0000275t)t NE = [CBW × (0.4504 – 0.000766t) × e ] / 1000 * k y m k = NE /ME m m Where: CBW = calf birth weight, 36 kg t = days in gestation, d NE = diet NE concentration, Mcal/kg m m ME = diet ME concentration, Mcal/kg Cows were individually fed once daily at 0730 h; feed refusals, if present, were removed from feed bunks once weekly. At the beginning and end of the feeding period (d 0 and d 56), animals were subjected to a series of measurements including: BW, hip th th height, and ultrasound assessments of rib fat thickness (between 12 and 13 rib), hip fat thickness, intramuscular fat, and ribeye area. Measurements were used for direct Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 comparison and as input variables for approximation of body energy reserves via selected regression models (Table 3). Samples of the diets were collected daily and were composited by week on an equal weight basis for subsequent analyses. Two fecal grab samples were collected from each cow (each separated by 12 h) and immediately frozen on d 14, 28, 42, and 56 for determination of diet digestibility. Acid detergent insoluble ash (ADIA) was used as an internal marker to estimate fecal production for digestion calculations. Laboratory Analysis Feed and fecal samples were processed for laboratory analyses using common procedures. Samples were dried in a forced-air oven for 96 h at 55 C, allowed to air equilibrate, and weighed for determination of partial DM. Samples were subsequently ground through a 1-mm screen using a Wiley mill (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ) and dried for 24 h at 105 C for determination of DM. Organic matter was determined as the loss in dry weight upon combustion in a muffle furnace for 8 h at 450 C. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) analysis was performed using an Ankom Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology Corp., Macedon, NY), and ADIA was determined as the remaining DM upon combustion of ADF residue in a muffle furnace at 450 C. Gross energy (Mcal/kg DM) values were determined by direct calorimetry using a Parr 6300 Calorimeter (Parr Instrument Company, Moline, IL). Digestion coefficients were calculated using the formula [1 – (fecal output of nutrient/intake of nutrient)] 100. Fecal production was calculated by dividing dietary ADIA intake by fecal ADIA concentration. Digestible energy (Mcal/kg DM) was Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 calculated by multiplying observed coefficient of energy digestibility (%) by GE (Mcal/kg DM) of each diet. Metabolizable energy was estimated for each diet by multiplying DE by 0.82 (NASEM, 2016). A calculated measure of BCS was estimated at both the beginning and end of the trial using a regression equation (rBCS; R = 0.996) developed from observations of fat thickness corresponding to observed BCS (Herd and Sprott, 1998): rBCS = -1.2927x + 6.0916x + 2.2114 Where: x = Rib fat thickness (cm) determined by ultrasound Equations published in NASEM (2016) were used, in addition to the previously mentioned regression models, to calculate empty body energy. Body energy (BE) was calculated as: BE (Mcal) = 9.4 TF + 5.7 TP Where: TF = total fat, kg TP = total protein, kg Body components were calculated as: TF = AF EBW TP = AP EBW Where: AF = proportion of empty body fat AP = proportion of empty body protein Body composition was estimated using the following equations: Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 AF = 3.768 rBCS AP = 20.09 – 0.668 rBCS Previously published equations were selected to complement NASEM (2016) estimates of BE. Equations presented by Ferrell and Jenkins (1984) estimated energy content of the empty body of mature beef cows, which is consistent with estimates based on NASEM equations. Alternatively, equations from articles by Gresham et al. (1986) and Wagner et al. (1988) estimated energy in the carcass of mature beef cows; however, estimates of empty body energy and carcass energy were used synonymously as proxies for BE in our calculations. Because cows were stratified by days of gestation, and growth and energy content of the gravid uterus during mid-gestation is likely minimal (Ferrell et al., 1976), they were not explicitly calculated; rather, energy changes related to growth of the gravid uterus and conceptus are implicit in the estimates of the change in BE. Total retained energy and HE were calculated as: RE , Mcal = BE - BE total f i HE , Mcal = MEI - RE total total total Where: BE = total body energy on d 56, Mcal BE = total body energy on d 0, Mcal MEI = total metabolizable energy intake (56 d), Mcal. total Daily RE, HE and MEI were calculated by dividing RE , HE and MEI by total total total 0.75 0.75 56 d. Results for RE, HE and MEI are reported in kcal/kg EBW . Average EBW was 0.75 calculated as [(initial EBW + final EBW) / 2] . Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Maintenance level of intake of metabolizable energy (ME ) was estimated for both H and L using a linear regression of the means of RE on MEI. The estimated regression equations representing each diet were solved for RE = zero; the solution of which represented ME for the respective diet. Fasting heat production was estimated for cows consuming H and L using the linear regression of the means of log (HE) on MEI. The linear functions were solved for MEI = zero; the solution represents the estimate of fasting heat production (FHP) for cows consuming the respective diet. Statistical Analysis All data analyses were analyzed using PROC MIXED procedures in SAS 9.3 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) for a completely randomized design with a 2 X 2 factorial treatment arrangement. The model effects included diet, intake and diet intake interactions. Experiment 2: Intake and digestion Sixteen Angus × Hereford steers (BW = 287 ± 21 kg) fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in an experiment designed to examine the effects of dietary energy concentration and intake level on diet utilization, ruminal pH, VFA concentrations, and gut fill. A 2 2 factorial treatment arrangement was utilized to replicate the treatments administered in Experiment 1. The diet was provided using mean intake levels from 0.75 Experiment 1 (g/EBW ). Intake in Experiment 2 was assigned according to individual 0.75 EBW . Steers were housed in individual stalls within an enclosed, continuously lighted barn, and provided ad libitum access to fresh water throughout the experiment. Steers were fed at 0700 h and feed refusals (if present) were collected daily. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Experimental procedures (Figure 2) were conducted as follows: 1) 14 d for adaptation to treatments, 2) 4 d for measurement of intake and digestion, 3) 1 d for determination of ruminal pH and VFA concentrations, and 4) 1 d for measurement of ruminal fill. Calculations of intake were based on observations from d 14 through d 18. Representative diet samples and feed refusals were obtained daily on d 14 through 17 and frozen at -20 C to correspond with fecal samples collected on d 15 through d 18 and immediately frozen at -20 C for determination of digestions. Fecal samples were collected every 8 h, with the sampling time advanced by 2 h each d, such that samples were represented in 2-h intervals post feeding across 24-h. On d 19 ruminal fermentation was characterized. A suction strainer (Raun and Burroughs, 1962; 19 mm diameter, 1.5 mm mesh) was used to collect ruminal fluid samples prior to feeding (0 h) and at 2, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 16 h after feeding. A portable pH meter with a combined electrode (VWR SympHony, Radnor, PA) was used to measure the pH of each sample at the time of sampling. Sub-samples of ruminal fluid were prepared and frozen at -20 C for subsequent determinations of VFA concentrations. Prior to freezing, 8 mL of rumen fluid was combined with 2 mL of 25% m-phosphoric acid for sample preservation. Samples of ruminal fluid were thawed and centrifuged at 20,000 × g for 20 min. Volatile fatty acid concentrations were measured using gas chromatography as described by Vanzant and Cochran (1994). On d 20, ruminal fill was measured via ruminal evacuation immediately prior to and 4 h post-feeding. Fill is defined in this study as the average of these two measurements. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Diets, feed refusals and fecal samples were processed and assessed using the same procedures as described in Experiment 1 for determination of partial DM, DM, OM, ADF, ADIA, and gross energy. Calculations Digestion coefficients were calculated using the following formula: [1 – (fecal output of nutrient/intake of nutrient)] 100. Fecal production was calculated by dividing fecal ADIA output by the concentration of ADIA in the diet. Statistical Analysis All data analyses were analyzed using PROC MIXED procedures in SAS 9.2 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Model for analysis of fill, intake and digestion responses included diet, intake and diet intake as effects. Responses associated with ruminal fluid (VFA, pH) were analyzed as repeated measures using the same effects, but with the addition of time and its interaction with other model effects. Steer served as the subject of repeated measures and an autoregressive covariance structure was utilized. RESULTS Experiment 1: Energy utilization in beef cows One cow from L120 was removed from the experiment and subsequent statistical analysis due to illness unrelated to treatment. Intakes of DM, DE, ME and NE were greater in cows fed L than in H (P < 0.01), and greater (P < 0.01) in cows fed 120 than in 80 (Table 4; P < 0.01). There were no interactions between energy density and intake level for estimates of digestibility or dietary energy availability (P ≥ 0.33). Digestibility of DM, OM and GE was greater in cows fed H than in L (P < 0.01), but ADF digestibility was greater in L (56.84%) than in Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 H (52.10%; P < 0.01). Digestibility of DM, OM, and GE was greater for cows fed 80 compared to 120% of NASEM requirements (P < 0.04), but digestibility of ADF was not affected by level of energy intake (P ≥ 0.45). By design, observed concentrations of DE, ME and NE per unit of dietary DM were greater in cows fed H than in those fed L (P < 0.01). Observed levels of NEm availability (Mcal/kg) were similar to predicted values for H but were greater than predicted values for L. Due to the effect of intake on GE digestibility, observed concentrations of DE, and thus ME and NE were greater in cows m, fed at 80 compared to those fed at 120% of requirements (P = 0.03). Observed NE intake relative to estimated requirements was lower than predicted in cows fed H (P < 0.05), and greater than expected in cows fed L (P > 0.05). No interactions between diet energy density and level of intake were observed for BW or ultrasound measurements at any time-point (P ≥ 0.12; Table 5). However, BW, 0.75 EBW , hip fat, and rib fat were greater (P ≤ 0.05) and ribeye area tended to be greater (P = 0.08) in cows fed L than in H prior to the start of the experiment. No interactions were observed for changes in these measures (P ≥ 0.26). Empty BW change was not different than zero for L80 (P = 0.21), but was positive for all other treatments (P ≤ 0.05). Cows consuming H tended to have greater EBW gain than cows consuming L (P = 0.08), but it was not measurably greater (P = 0.12) in cows fed 120 compared to 80. Changes in hip fat, rib fat, IMF or REA were not different between H-fed and L- fed fed cows (P ≥ 0.48). Change in hip fat tended to be more negative for cows fed 80 (- 1.25 cm) than for those fed 120 (-0.45 cm; (P = 0.06), but change in rib fat, IMF and REA were minimally affected by level of intake (P ≥ 0.15). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Retained energy was estimated using several different equations, each based on different combinations of estimators (Table 6). Regardless of equation used to estimate RE, no interactions between diet energy density and level of energy intake were observed (P ≥ 0.37), nor did diet impact estimates of RE (P ≥ 0.15). One equation (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1984; Equation 1) estimated greater RE for cows fed 120 than those fed 80 (P = 0.03), while other equations (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1984 Equation 2; Gresham et al., 1986); Wagner et al., 1988) used to estimate RE resulted in a tendency for cows fed 120 to have greater estimates of RE than those fed 80 (P < 0.10). One equation from Wagner et al. (1988; Equation 4) estimated no differences in RE due to diet or intake effects (P > 0.42). The only predictor in this equation is body condition score; based on results for the change in rib fat due to treatment, and our use of rib fat thickness as the predictor of rBCS, the results of this equation are explicable. There were no significant interactions observed between diet energy density and level of intake for HE, regardless of the equation used for estimating RE (P ≥ 0.17: Table 7). All estimated HE values were greater for L than H (P < 0.01) and greater for 120 than 80 (P < 0.01). Experiment 2: Intake and digestion Intakes of DM, ADF, GE, DE, and ME were greater in L than H (P < 0.01) and greater in 120 than 80 (P < 0.01; Table 8). Intake of NE was not different between diets (P = 0.20) but was greater in 120 than 80 (P < 0.01). Diet intake interactions were observed for nutrient digestibility. Digestibility of DM, OM, and GE was greater in steers fed H than in L (P < 0.01); however, digestibility Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 of each nutrient increased by approximately 10% in steers fed H80 versus those fed H120 (P ≤ 0.03) but was similar for both levels of intake in steers fed L (P = 0.54). Digestibility of ADF was lower in steers fed H120 than those fed H80, but was not affected by intake of L (diet intake, P = 0.08). A diet intake interaction was observed for ruminal pH (P = 0.08; Fig. 1). Mean pH was lower (P = 0.03) in steers fed H120 than those fed L120 (6.30 and 6.41, respectively), but was not different (P = 0.56) between diets at low intake (L80 vs. H80). Prior to feeding, pH was greater in H than L (P < 0.01) but was lower 6-12 h post-feeding (P < 0.05). A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal total VFA concentration (P = 0.03; Figure 2). Prior to feeding until 2 h, steers fed L had greater total VFA concentration than those fed H (P < 0.04); however, at h 12, total VFA concentration tended to be greater in H than L (P = 0.08). A diet intake interaction was also observed (P = 0.03). Total ruminal VFA concentration was greatest in L80 (66.5 mM) and lowest in H80 (60.8 mM). A diet × intake interaction was observed for acetate concentration (P < 0.01), with acetate increasing with greater intake of H (H80, 63.3; H120, 65.2 mM), but not differing between intakes of L (L80, 67.8; L120, 67.2 mM). Propionate concentration was greater in H than L (21.0 mM and 19.5 mM, respectively; (P < 0.10) and greater in 80 than 120 (20.9 mM and 19.7 mM, respectively; P < 0.01). No diet × intake or treatment × time interactions were observed for ruminal acetate:propionate ratio (A:P; Figure 3). Ruminal A:P was greater in steers fed L than those fed H (P < 0.01), and greater in 120 than 80 (P < 0.01). Steers fed H80 had the lowest A:P from 6 to 16h post- feeding (P < 0.01). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 DISCUSSION Experimental objectives were to quantify the effects of dietary energy density and intake level on efficiency of energy utilization in limit-fed beef cows, and to evaluate potential sources of observed effects. Experiment 1 was primarily designed to measure energy utilization and to estimate energy retention/loss in the form of heat. Experiment 2 was intended to support and provide explanation for observed results from Experiment 1 for energy utilization, and was designed to evaluate effects of treatments on ruminal digestion, fill (and by proxy, ruminal retention of ingesta) and fermentation parameters . Diet utilization, which is largely driven by extent of ruminal digestion, was greater in H vs. L, by design. Restricting intake improved diet utilization, but this effect was more pronounced in H. Increases in digestibility with intake restriction, specifically in high-energy diets, have been reported extensively in the literature in dairy (Moe et al., 1965; Tyrrell and Moe, 1972; Colucci et al., 1982) and in beef cattle (Galyean et al., 1979; Loerch, 1990; Zinn et al., 1995). Observations from the dairy literature may be more applicable to the limit-fed cows in our study, because effects on energy utilization were measured at similar degrees of intake restriction. When intake is restricted, greater digestibility is often attributed to slower digesta passage rate (Mertens et al., 1987). Decreased rate of passage results in a slower decline in ruminal pH and improved fiber digestion (Mould et al., 1983). Dry matter intake as a percentage of ruminal DM fill decreased with intake restriction in both diets (92 to 83 % in H; 120 to 90% in L) in Experiment 2, suggesting an increase in ruminal retention time with lower intake. The magnitude of this difference was greater in L than in H, which is consistent with the larger increase in DMI for the L diet necessary to achieve similar Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 programmed energy intake. This effect may also explain the larger departure from expected values of digestibility and therefore energy availability for the L than the H diets. This difference, and the resulting underestimation of the energy value of the L diet, led to greater observed levels of NEm intake relative to targets in L- compared to H-fed cows. Although ruminal retention time may have increased to a greater degree in steers fed L compared to those fed H, digestibility was less affected by intake level of L in both experiments. Changes in passage rate caused by intake restriction could have interacted with potential rate of degradation for each diet, resulting in pronounced changes in digestibility in H without a measurable change in L. It is also possible that maximal extent of digestion was approached in L, thus changes in passage rate would have more limited effects digestibility. Effects on passage rate are not likely to be solely responsible for the changes in apparent energy availability observed in these studies. In Exp. 2, the rate of decline in ruminal pH from greater intake was more severe in H than L, falling below 6.0 in H120. Additionally, ADF digestibility was reduced with greater intake of H in Exp. 2, supporting the conjecture that reduced fiber digestion accounts for a portion of the reduction in energy availability often observed with increasing intake (Mould et al., 1983). Intake restriction increased diet digestibility, with the magnitude of difference being greater in the high-energy diet than in the low-energy diet, which is consistent with the dairy literature (Brown, 1966; Tyrrell and Moe, 1974; Llamas-Lamas and Combs, 1991). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 In cows fed H80, BW gain was positive, the observed changes in most measures of fat were not different from zero, and all estimates of RE were either positive or not different from zero. Differences in energy retention estimated from equations from the literature correspond to those calculated using NASEM (2016) equations, and the rank of treatment means is generally consistent across all equations (Table 9), suggesting that energy intake was sufficient to achieve maintenance, although energy intake was only 76% the recommended level (6.53 Mcal NE /d). Because changes in BW, measures of body fat, and thus estimates of RE were minimally affected by intake level, it is possible that energy requirements were reduced due to a shift in equilibrium FHP, similar to that described by Freetly and Nienaber (1998). Energy restriction is known to decrease splanchnic tissue mass and subsequent heat production (McLeod and Baldwin, 2000; Camacho et al., 2014), increasing the efficiency of energy use (Freetly and Nienaber, 1998; Freetly et al., 2000, 2008) in sheep and mature cows. Similar effects of restricting intake have been demonstrated in growing cattle; Birkelo et al. (1991) observed a 7 % reduction in FHP and a 14 % reduction in ME with intake restriction from 2.2 to 1.2 times maintenance. Values for ME were estimated (Figure 4) for each diet. Estimated 0.75 ME for H (115 kcal/kg EBW ) was lower than predicted values (141 kcal/kg 0.75 0.75 EBW ), but was greater than predicted (186 vs. 158 kcal/kg EBW ) for L. The fact that ME is greater for L than H is reasonable, as the efficiency of ME use is known to be greater in high-energy diets than in low-energy diets (NASEM, 2016); however, the degree by which ME of H was shifted (18%), relative to NASEM (2016) estimates, is notable. This observation suggests an overestimation of ME requirements in cows consuming a high-energy diet by the NASEM (2016). Freetly and Nienaber (1998) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 reported a 22% decrease in ME requirements when intake was restricted by 65% in mature cows, which is similar to our observed decrease in H. Order of HE estimates across treatments was similar across all equations, suggesting that the particular equation used for estimation of body energy is not necessarily of great importance; percent decrease in heat production from L to H (Table 10) ranged from 23.4 to 27.5%. Similarly, the percent reduction in heat energy associated with intake restriction is similar across equations (21.8 to 24.7%). The effects of dietary energy density and intake on heat production were additive, decreasing approximately 43% from L120 to H80 across all equations. Heat production occurs in a nonlinear function of MEI; therefore, log transformation of heat production allows for a meaningful linear regression of HE on 0.75 MEI (Garrett, 1987; Figure 5). Estimated FHP of of cows fed H (57.2 kcal/kg EBW ) 0.75 was lower than that of cows fed L (73.3 kcal/kg EBW ), consistent with observations by Blaxter (1962), who found that FHP decreases as energy density increases in the diet. Estimates of FHP in cows fed L or H were 35% and 17%, respectively, lower than 0.75 NASEM (2016) estimates (88.3 kcal/kg EBW ) for a mid-gestation cow, and were also 0.75 lower than the NASEM (2016) assumption of basal metabolism (77 kcal/kg EBW ). Restricted intake and subsequently reduced metabolic load may have altered the size of metabolically active organs (Reynolds et al., 1991; McLeod and Baldwin, 2000), resulting in reduced energy requirements. Using these estimates of FHP and ME , a graphic illustration of NE, following that of Garrett (1987), was produced (Figure 6). This illustrates both the decrease in FHP and the increased efficiency with which ME is utilized in H relative to L. The slope of RE Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 on MEI represents the efficiency of ME use for energy retention below (k ) and above (k ) maintenance intake. Our estimates of ME intake were calculated by using the DE:ME conversion rate of 82% (NASEM, 2016), which has been widely debated (BCNRM, 2016). Hales et al. (2012, 2013, and 2014) observed DE:ME conversions much greater than 82% (89.3 to 95.0%) in growing cattle fed high-energy diets, which is likely attributed to reduced methane production. If methane production was less than expected in cattle fed H, then DE:ME was greater than estimated, causing ME intake and maintenance requirements to be underestimated. However, this conversion would need to be almost 102% to achieve maintenance in cows fed H80, which suggests that, even if DE:ME were underpredicted, the discrepancy is likely not adequate to provide the sole explanation of observed decreases in heat production. Mills et al. (2001) proposed that the proportion of ingested energy lost as methane actually increases with intake restriction, which would result in overestimated dietary ME (rather than underestimated) values in feed restricted animals. Furthermore, Vermorel and Bickel (1980) suggested that methane losses are likely greater in mature animals than in young, growing animals. If DE:ME was lower that 82%, then our estimates of heat production would be overestimated, further supporting the hypothesis that maintenance requirements decrease with restricted intake of high- energy diets. Overall, intake restriction can improve diet utilization, but the magnitude of change depends on diet energy density. This relationship should be quantified in diets fed at intake levels that are applicable to gestating beef cows. Diet had minimal effects on estimates of RE, but cows fed H had lower HE. Increasing intake increased RE; however, Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 even in cows fed 80, RE was not negative. Increasing intake also increased HE, which is consistent with our hypothesis that restricting intake increases energy efficiency of diet utilization and reduces maintenance requirements. A model accommodating these dynamic adjustments will be necessary to the development optimal feed delivery strategies, but these results suggest that opportunities exist to strategically enhance efficiencies in intensively managed systems. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 LITERATURE CITED Armstrong, D. G., and K. L. Blaxter. 1961. The utilization of the energy of carbohydrates by ruminants. Eur. Assoc. Anim. Prod. 10:187. Birkelo, C. P., D. E. Johnson, and H. P. Phetteplace. 1991. Maintenance requirements of beef cattle as affected by season on different planes of nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 69:1214-1222. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6931214x Blaxter, K. L. 1962. The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants. Hutchinson, London. Brown, L. D. 1966. Influence of intake on feed utilization. J. Dairy Sci. 49:223. Comparison of real-time ultrasound and other live measures to carcass measures as predictors of beef cow energy stores. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3908-3916. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(66)87834-7 Camacho, L. E., C. O. Lemley, M. L. Van Emon, J. S. Caton, K. C. Swanson, and K. A. Vonnahme. 2014. Effects of maternal nutrient restriction followed by realimentation during early and midgestation on beef cows. I. Maternal performance and organ weights at different stages of gestation. J. Anim. Sci. 92:520-529. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7017 Colucci, P. E., L. E. Chase, and P. J. Van Soest. 1982. Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of particulate passage in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 65:1445– 1456. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0189 Federation of Animal Science Societies. 2010. In: ADSA, ASAS, and PSA, editors, Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in research and teaching. Ferrell, C. L., W. N. Garrett, and N. Hinman. 1976. Growth, development and Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 composition of the udder and gravid uterus of beef heifers during pregnancy. J. Anim. Sci. 42:1477-1489. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1976.4261477x Ferrell, C. L., and T. G. Jenkins. 1984. Relationships among various body components of mature cows. J. Anim. Sci. 58:222-233. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1984.581222x Freetly, H. C., and J. A. Nienaber. 1998. Efficiency of energy and nitrogen loss and gain in mature cows. J. Anim. Sci. 76:896-905. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.763896x Freetly, H. C., C. L. Ferrell, and T. G. Jenkins. 2000. Timing of realimentation of mature cows that were feed-restricted during pregnancy influences calf birth weights and growth rates. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2790-2796. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.78112790x Freetly, H. C., J. A Nienaber, and T. Brown-Brandl. 2006. Changes in heat production by mature cows after changes in feeding level. J. Anim. Sci. 84:1429-1438. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.8461429x Freetly, H. C., J. A Nienaber, and T. Brown-Brandl. 2008. Partitioning of energy in pregnant beef cows during nutritionally induced body weight fluctuation. J. Anim. Sci. 86:370-377. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0250 Galyean, M. L., D. G. Wagner and F. N. Owens. 1979. Level of feed intake and site and extent of digestion of high concentrate diets by steers. J. Anim. Sci. 49:199. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1979.491199x Garrett, W.N. 1987. Relationship between energy metabolism and the amounts of protein and fat deposited in growing cattle. Proc. Energy Metab. 10:98-101. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Gresham, J. D., J. W. Holloway, W. T. Butts, and J. R. McCurley. 1986. Prediction of mature cow carcass composition from live animal measurements. J. Anim Sci. 63:1041-1048. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6341041x Hales, K. E., T. M. Brown-Brandl, and H. C. Freetly. 2014. Effects of decreased dietary roughage concentration on energy metabolism and nutrient balance in finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 92:264–271. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6994 Hales, K. E., N. A. Cole, and J. C. MacDonald. 2012. Effects of corn processing method and dietary inclusion of wet distillers grains with solubles on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 90:3174– 3185. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4441 Hales, K. E., N. A. Cole, and J. C. MacDonald. 2013. Effects of increasing concentrations of wet distillers grains with solubles in steam-flaked, corn-based diets on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 91:819–828. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5418 Herd, D. B., and L. R. Sprott. 1998. Body condition, nutrition and reproduction of beef cows. Texas Agrilife Extension Service, College Station, TX. Retrieved from: http://animalscience-old.tamu.edu/beef-skillathon/pdf/nutrition-body-condition- nutrition.pdf. p. 4. Holmes, C. W., N. A. McLean and K. J. Lockyer. 1978. Changes in the rate of heat production of calves during grazing and eating. N. Zeal. J. Agr. Res. 21:107-112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1978.10427388 Horn, G. W., and F. T. McCollum. 1987. Energy supplementation of grazing ruminants. In: Proc. Graz. Livest. Nutr. Conf., Jackson Hole, WY. p. 125-136. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Jenkins, T. G., and C. L. Ferrell. 1997. Changes in proportions of empty body depots and constituents for nine breeds of cattle under various feed availabilities. J. Anim. Sci. 75:95-104. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.75195x Koong, L. J., C. L. Ferrell, and J. A. Nienaber. 1985. Assessment of interrelationships among levels of intake and production, organ size and fasting heat production in growing animals. J. Nutr. 115(10):1383-1390. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/115.10.1383 Llamas-Lamas, G., and D. K. Combs. 1991. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio and intake level on utilization of early vegetative alfalfa silage by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 74:526–536. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78200-3 Loerch, S. C. 1990. Effects of feeding growing cattle high concentrate diets at a restricted intake on feedlot performance. J. Anim. Sci. 68:3086. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.68103086x McLeod, K. R., and R. L. Baldwin. 2000. Effects of diet forage:concentrate ratio and metabolizable energy intake on visceral organ growth and in vitro oxidative capacity of gut tissues in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 78:760-770. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.783760x Mertens, D. R. 1987. Predicting intake and digestibility using mathematical models of ruminal function. J. Anim. Sci. 64: 1548-1558. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.6451548x Mills, J. A., J. Dijkstra, A. Bannink, S. B. Cammell, E. Kebreab, and J. France. 2001. A Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating dairy cow: model development, evaluation, and application. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1584-1597. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7961584x Moe, P. W., J. T. Reid, and H. F. Tyrrell. 1965. Effect of level of intake on digestibility of dietary energy by high producing cows. J. Dairy Sci. 48:1053–1061. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(65)88391-6 Mould, F. L., and E. R. Ørskov. 1983. Manipulation of rumen fluid pH and its influence on cellulosis in sacco, dry matter degradation and the rumen microflora of sheep offered either hay or concentrate. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 10:1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(83)90002-0 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19014. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2014. United States Department of Agriculture Economics, Statistics, and Market Information System. Cornell University, Ithica, NY. Retrieved from: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1 Reynolds, C. K., H. F. Tyrrell, and P. J. Reynolds. 1991. Effects of diet forage-to- concentrate ratio and intake on energy metabolism in growing beef heifers: whole body energy and nitrogen balance and visceral heat production. J. Nutr. 121:994- 1003. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/121.7.994 Sainz, R. D., F. De la Torre and J. W. Oltjen. 1995. Compensatory growth and carcass Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 quality in growth-restricted and refed beef steers. J. Anim. Sci, 73:2971-2979. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73102971x Sawyer, J. E., C. P Mathis and B. Davis. 2004. Effects of feeding strategy and age on live animal performance, carcass characteristics, and economics of short-term feeding programs for culled beef cows. J. Anim. Sci, 83:3646-3653. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.82123646x Swingle, R. S., C. B. Roubicek, R. A. Wooten, J. A. Marchello, and F. D. Dryden. 1979. Realimentation of cull range cows. I. Effect of final body condition and dietary energy level on rate, efficiency and composition of gains. J. Anim. Sci, 48:913- 918. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1979.484913x Tyrrell, H. F. and P. W. Moe. 1972. Net energy values for lactation of a high and low concentrate ration containing corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 55: 1106-1112. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(72)85632-7 Tyrrell, H. F. and P. W. Moe. 1974. Net energy value of a corn and a barley ration for lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 57: 451-458. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(74)84913-1 Tyrrell, H. F., and P. W. Moe. 1975. Effect of intake on digestive efficiency. J. Dairy Sci. 58:1151–1163. doi:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(75)84694-7 Vermorel, M., and H. Bickel. 1980. Utilisation of feed energy by growing ruminants. Ann. Zootech. 29:127–143. Wagner, D. G., and J. K. Loosli. 1967. Studies on the energy requirements of high- producing dairy cows. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Memoir 400:1-40. Wagner, J. J., K. S. Lusby, J. W. Oltjen, J. Rakestraw, R. P. Wettemann, and L. E. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Walters. 1988. Carcass composition in mature hereford cows: Estimation and effect on daily metabolizable energy requirement during winter. J. Anim. Sci. 66:603-612. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.663603x Zinn, R. A., C. F. Adam, and M. S. Tamayo. 1995. Interaction of feed intake on comparative ruminal and total tract digestion of dryrolled and steam-flaked corn. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1239. doi:https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7351239x Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 1. Formulated ingredient and nutrient composition of treatment diets High Low Ingredient Energy Energy % As fed Wheat straw 34.52 64.08 Corn 29.46 0.00 Distillers’ grain 27.46 27.36 Urea 1.10 1.10 Molasses 5.00 5.00 Mineral 2.46 2.46 Diet components DM basis CP, % 16.3 14.4 TDN, % 68.0 54.0 ME, Mcal/kg 2.45 1.94 NE , Mcal/kg 1.54 1.08 NE , Mcal/kg 0.95 0.53 According to NRC model estimates Dry matter content: high energy, 83.4%; low energy, 83.1%. Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 2. Targeted intake of treatment diets and estimates of requirements per NRC (2000) High energy diet Low energy diet Daily Intake 80 120 80 120 As fed, kg 4.40 6.39 6.49 9.52 Dry matter, kg 3.91 5.68 5.79 8.49 DE, Mcal 11.68 16.97 13.70 20.09 ME, Mcal 9.58 13.92 11.23 16.47 NE , Mcal 6.02 8.74 6.25 9.17 Requirements, Mcal NE /d 7.53 7.28 7.81 7.64 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 3. Multiple regression coefficients of selected models used for estimating energy contained in the empty body or carcass of beef cows Independent variables 2 2 Model Type β BW BF BF BF HH WH WT:HH BCS EBW R 0 c m m Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) Empty Body 73.3 2.9 422.0 -2.7 0.87 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) Empty Body -333.0 4.6 0.69 Gresham et al. (1986) Carcass -733.7 1.8 77.7 -1.8 2.5 0.87 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) Carcass -487.2 1.3 78.4 0.90 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) Carcass -661.5 2.7 0.81 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) Carcass -756.7 361.5 0.83 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) Carcass -221.5 128.2 0.85 Mcal BW = live body weight (kg); BF = back fat (cm); BF = back fat (mm); HH = hip height (cm); WH = wither height (cm, estimated c m as HH - 5); BCS = body condition score (1 to 9 scale, 1 = emaciated and 9 = very obese); WT:HH = ratio of WT:HH, kg:cm; EBW = empty body weight (kg) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 4. Apparent nutrient digestibility and energy availability of high- and low-energy density diets fed to beef cows in confinement at 80% or 120% of NASEM (2016) predicted energy requirement High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Item 80 120 80 120 intake 0.101 DMI, kg/d 3.74 5.43 5.49 7.84 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.75 DMI, g/kg EBW 44.62 63.98 63.09 87.78 1.33 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.05 Digestibility, % DM 65.9 62.8 58.9 57.2 1.44 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.40 OM 69.1 66.5 63.8 62.4 1.45 < 0.01 0.01 0.43 ADF 49.9 52.8 58.1 57.7 2.25 < 0.01 0.45 0.33 GE 68.3 65.9 63. 61.5 1.63 < 0.01 0.04 0.74 Energy availability, Mcal/kg GE 4.30 4.26 DE 2.94 2.83 2.69 2.62 0.062 < 0.01 0.03 0.74 ME 2.41 2.32 2.21 2.15 0.051 < 0.01 0.03 0.74 NE 1.53 1.45 1.35 1.29 0.032 < 0.01 0.03 0.74 0.75 Energy intake, kcal/kg EBW 131.23 181.42 170.34 230.27 3.604 DE < 0.01 < 0.01 0.16 107.61 148.76 139.68 188.83 2.955 ME < 0.01 < 0.01 0.29 NE 68.21 92.86 85.21 113.50 1.805 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.39 NE intake, % requirement 75.83 108.24 94.88 132.70 Observed via feed and fecal nutrient analysis Formulated NEm concentrations for high- and low-energy diets were 1.54 and 1.08 Mcal/kg, respectively Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 5. Body measurements of beef cows in confinement fed high- and low-energy density diets at 80% or 120% of NASEM (2016) predicted energy requirement High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Item 80 120 80 120 intake Initial measurements EBW, kg 370 358 388 393 9.2 < 0.01 0.65 0.34 0.75 EBW , kg 84.44 82.31 87.49 88.25 1.563 < 0.01 0.74 0.37 Hip fat, mm 4.19 3.24 6.19 5.27 1.067 0.05 0.34 0.99 Rib fat, mm 2.64 3.05 4.79 5.27 0.976 0.02 0.62 0.97 Intramuscular fat, % 2.91 2.47 2.94 2.90 0.262 0.35 0.33 0.43 Ribeye area, cm 57.44 64.52 64.52 67.58 3.570 0.08 0.08 0.48 Final measurements EBW, kg 387 393 401 408 11.4 0.19 0.54 0.91 0.75 EBW , kg 87.30 88.21 89.54 90.84 1.900 0.17 0.48 0.96 Hip fat, mm 2.79 3.18 5.08 4.89 0.931 0.03 0.91 0.75 Rib fat, mm 2.48 2.98 4.16 5.21 1.029 0.04 0.39 0.76 Intramuscular fat, % 2.92 2.54 2.70 3.05 0.246 0.52 0.93 0.12 Ribeye area, cm 57.67 66.37 62.82 67.11 3.483 0.32 0.04 0.45 Change in measurements EBW, kg 17 35 12 15 6.9 0.08 0.12 0.27 0.75 EBW , kg 2.86 5.90 2.05 2.59 1.164 0.07 0.11 0.26 * * * Hip fat, mm -1.40 -0.06 -1.11 -0.39 0.580 0.97 0.06 0.56 * * * * Rib fat, mm -0.16 -0.06 -0.06 -0.02 0.356 0.48 0.25 0.39 * * * * Intramuscular fat, % 0.02 0.07 -0.24 -0.14 0.150 0.55 0.15 0.26 2 * * * * Ribeye area, cm -3.44 1.85 -1.69 -1.20 2.215 0.77 0.20 0.29 Formulated NEm concentrations for high- and low-energy diets were 1.54 and 1.08 Mcal/kg, respectively Means with asterisk are not different from zero (P > 0.05) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 6. Estimates of retained energy (RE) in confined beef cows fed high- and low-energy density diets at 80% or 120% of NASEM (2016) predicted energy requirement High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Model 80 120 80 120 intake NASEM -1.77 8.13 -8.02 0.55 5.28 0.17 0.07 0.89 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) 4.57 17.10 -0.52 8.04 5.09 0.15 0.03 0.68 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) 7.92 24.08 6.69 12.37 6.06 0.27 0.06 0.37 Gresham et al. (1986) 1.70 10.15 -4.18 3.17 5.01 0.18 0.10 0.90 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) 1.41 7.38 -2.39 2.57 3.25 0.17 0.08 0.87 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) 5.48 16.67 4.63 8.56 4.20 0.27 0.06 0.37 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) 5.62 16.59 4.53 8.56 4.17 0.26 0.06 0.38 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) -1.97 -0.92 -7.52 -2.47 4.68 0.43 0.49 0.65 a 0.75 -1 -0.75 kcal/d/EBW , Calculated as RE • d •EBW , where d = 56 days Formulated NEm concentrations for high- and low-energy diets were 1.54 and 1.08 Mcal/kg, respectively Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 7. Estimates of heat production (HE) in confined beef cows fed high- and low-energy density diets at 80% or 120% of NRC (2016) predicted energy requirement High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Model 80 120 80 120 intake NASEM 109.39 140.63 147.69 188.28 5.48 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.37 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) 103.04 131.66 140.20 180.79 5.81 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.28 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) 99.70 124.68 132.99 176.46 7.39 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.20 Gresham et al. (1986) 105.91 138.61 143.86 185.66 5.11 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.35 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) 106.21 141.38 142.07 186.26 3.86 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.23 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) 102.13 132.09 135.05 180.26 5.72 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.17 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) 101.99 132.17 135.15 180.27 5.68 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.17 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) 109.58 149.68 147.20 191.29 4.29 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.62 a 0.75 0.75 kcal/d/EBW , Calculated as (ME - RE) / d / EBW , where d = 52 days Formulated NEm concentrations for high- and low-energy diets were 1.54 and 1.08 Mcal/kg, respectively Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 8. Effect of diet energy density and level of intake on digestibility and ruminal fill in ruminally cannulated steers High energy diet Low energy diet Probability Diet × SEM Diet Intake Item 80 120 80 120 intake b c d e DMI, kg/d 2.82 4.22 3.96 5.88 0.135 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 0.75 b d c e DMI, g/kg EBW 44.18 66.64 59.74 75.10 1.622 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 Digestibility, % b c c c DM 68.1 60.5 57.5 59.1 1.6 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 b c c c OM 71.7 64.0 61.3 63.4 1.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 b c b b ADF 49.7 44.0 50.9 52.3 1.8 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 b c c c GE 68.6 61.1 59.0 60.7 1.7 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 Energy availability, Mcal/kg GE 4.31 4.27 b c c c DE 2.96 2.63 2.52 2.60 0.071 <0.01 0.11 0.01 b c c c ME 2.42 2.06 2.06 2.13 0.058 <0.01 0.11 0.01 b c c c NE 1.54 1.30 1.21 1.27 0.053 <0.01 0.11 0.01 Energy Intake, Mcad/d GE 12.13 18.09 16.31 20.75 0.593 <0.01 <0.01 0.22 DE 8.34 11.09 9.63 12.60 0.512 0.02 <0.01 0.85 ME 6.84 9.10 7.89 10.34 0.420 0.02 <0.01 0.85 NE 4.34 5.48 4.64 6.18 0.305 0.20 <0.01 0.51 Ruminal DM fill, kg 3.39 4.57 4.41 4.92 0.276 0.02 0.01 0.24 Observed via feed and fecal analysis b,c,d,e Within a row, means without a common superscript letter differ (P < 0.05) Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 9. Effect of increasing dietary energy density and restricting intake on retained energy Factor Means Difference b c H L 80 120 Diet Intake NRC 3.18 -3.73 4.90 4.34 6.91 9.27 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) 10.84 3.76 2.02 12.57 7.08 10.55 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) 16.00 9.53 7.30 18.23 6.47 10.92 Gresham et al. (1986) 5.93 -0.51 -1.24 6.66 6.43 7.90 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) 4.39 0.09 -0.49 4.97 4.30 5.47 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) 11.08 6.60 5.06 12.62 4.48 7.56 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) 11.10 6.54 5.07 12.57 4.56 7.50 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) -1.44 -4.99 -4.74 -1.69 3.55 3.05 Means 7.64 2.16 2.24 8.78 5.47 7.78 a 0.75 kcal/kg EBW Calculated as H - L Calculated as 120 - 80 Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Table 10. Effect of increasing dietary energy density and restricting intake on daily heat production Factor Means Percentage change b c H L 80 120 Diet Intake 125.0 168.0 128.5 164.5 NRC -25.6% -21.8% 117.4 160.5 121.6 156.2 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 1) -26.9% -22.2% 112.2 154.7 116.3 150.6 Ferrell and Jenkins (1984, 2) -27.5% -22.7% 122.3 164.8 124.9 162.1 Gresham et al. (1986) -25.8% -23.0% 123.8 164.2 124.1 163.8 Wagner et al. (1988, 1) -24.6% -24.2% 117.1 157.7 118.6 156.2 Wagner et al. (1988, 2) -25.7% -24.1% 117.1 157.7 118.6 156.2 Wagner et al. (1988, 3) -25.8% -24.1% 129.6 169.2 128.4 170.5 Wagner et al. (1988, 4) -23.4% -24.7% Means 120.6 162.1 122.6 160.0 -25.7% -23.4% Mcal, 56 d Calculated as 100% × [(H - L) / L] Calculated as 100% × [(80 - 120) / 120] Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 Figure 1. Ruminal pH of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE m m requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE requirements (L120). m m Values are means ± SEM (0.079); n = 16. A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal pH. Ruminal pH was greater in steers fed H than those fed L prior to feeding, but lower from 6 to 12 h after feeding. A diet intake interaction (P = 0.09) was also observed. Ruminal pH was lowest in H120 (6.30) and greatest in L120 (6.41). Figure 2. Ruminal VFA concentrations of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE m m m requirements (L120). Values are means ± SEM (4.400); n = 16. A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal total VFA concentration. Prior to feeding until 2 h, steers fed L had greater total VFA concentration (P < 0.04) than those fed H; however, at h 12, total VFA concentration tended to be greater (P = 0.08) in H than L. A diet intake interaction (P = 0.03) was also observed. Total ruminal VFA concentration was greatest in L80 (66.5 mM) and lowest in H80 (60.8 mM). Accepted Manuscript Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 H80 6.8 H120 L80 6.6 L120 6.4 6.2 5.8 0 2 4 6 9 12 16 Time after feeding, h Figure 1. Ruminal pH of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE m m requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE requirements (L120). m m Values are means ± SEM (0.079); n = 16. A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal pH. Ruminal pH was greater in steers fed H than those fed L prior to feeding, but lower from 6 to 12 h after feeding. A diet intake interaction (P = 0.09) was also observed. Ruminal pH was lowest in H120 (6.30) and greatest in L120 (6.41). Accepted Manuscript pH Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 H80 H120 L80 L120 0 2 4 6 9 12 16 Time after feeding, h Figure 2. Ruminal VFA concentrations of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE m m m requirements (L120). Values are means ± SEM (4.400); n = 16. A diet time interaction was observed for ruminal total VFA concentration. Prior to feeding until 2 h, steers fed L had greater total VFA concentration (P < 0.04) than those fed H; however, at h 12, total VFA concentration tended to be greater (P = 0.08) in H than L. A diet intake interaction (P = 0.03) was also observed. Total ruminal VFA concentration was greatest in L80 (66.5 mM) and lowest in H80 (60.8 mM). Accepted Manuscript Total VFA, mM Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 4.2 3.7 3.2 2.7 H80 H120 2.2 L80 1.7 L120 1.2 0 2 4 6 9 12 16 Time after feeding, h Figure 3. Ruminal acetate:propionate ratio (A:P) of steers fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE m m m requirements (L120). Values are means ± SEM (0.133); n = 16. Ruminal A:P was greater in steers fed L than those fed H (P < 0.01) and greater in steers fed 120 than those fed 80 (P < 0.01). Accepted Manuscript Acetate:Propionate ratio Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 10.0 y = 0.2408x - 27.688 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 y = 0.1742x - 32.349 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 -8.0 -10.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 0.75 MEI, kcal/EBW /d Figure 4. Means regression of retained energy on metabolizable energy intake of cows fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements m m m (L80), or L offered at 120% NE requirements (L120) Accepted Manuscript 0.75 RE, kcal/EBW /d Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 2.3 2.25 y = 0.0022x + 1.8653 2.2 2.15 2.1 y = 0.0026x + 1.7572 2.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0.75 MEI, kcal/EBW /d Figure 5. Means regression of heat production (logarithmic transformation) on metabolizable energy intake of cows fed a high-energy diet (H) offered at 80% NE requirements (H80), H offered at 120% NE requirements (H120), a low-energy m m diet (L) offered at 80% NE requirements (L80), or L offered at 120% NE requirements (L120) m m Accepted Manuscript 0.75 log (HE), kcal/EBW /d Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/tas/txz039/5479945 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 30 April 2019 y = 0.2408x - 27.69 y = 0.1748x - 32.458 -10 y = 0.4972x - 57.174 -20 -30 y = 0.3949x - 73.333 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0.75 MEI, kcal/EBW /d Figure 6. Estimated net energy delivery of treatment high (H) and low (L) energy diets Accepted Manuscript 0.75 RE, kcal/EBW /d

Journal

Translational Animal ScienceOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2019

There are no references for this article.