Impacts of a limit-feeding procedure on variation and accuracy of cattle weights1

Cattle weights can be highly variable and are influenced by many factors, including time of weighing, ambient temperature, feed intake, and cattle handling. A protocol of limit feeding has been in use since the 1980s that was designed to reduce variation in gut fill due to differences in intakes. Ca...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2013-11, Vol.91 (11), p.5507-5517
Hauptverfasser: Watson, A. K., Nuttelman, B. L., Klopfenstein, T. J., Lomas, L. W., Erickson, G. E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 5517
container_issue 11
container_start_page 5507
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 91
creator Watson, A. K.
Nuttelman, B. L.
Klopfenstein, T. J.
Lomas, L. W.
Erickson, G. E.
description Cattle weights can be highly variable and are influenced by many factors, including time of weighing, ambient temperature, feed intake, and cattle handling. A protocol of limit feeding has been in use since the 1980s that was designed to reduce variation in gut fill due to differences in intakes. Cattle are penned and fed a 50% hay, 50% wet corn gluten feed or grain diet (DM basis) at an estimated 2% of BW for at least 5 d, after which weights are taken on 2 consecutive d and averaged for a limit-fed BW (LFW). For this analysis, full-fed weights (FFW) also were taken before the limit-feeding period while cattle had ad libitum intakes. Data from 18 experiments were used to analyze differences within 2-d LFW and between LFW and FFW. For 10 of the 18 experiments, FFW also were measured on 2 consecutive d. Cattle included in this summary were grazing cornstalks, smooth bromegrass pasture, Bermuda grass pasture, fescue pasture, native range, or in a dry lot on a 70% forage diet. The largest differences between FFW and LFW for individual cattle were -39 to +44 kg over all 18 experiments. Differences between 2 consecutive d of LFW were -23 to +24 kg for all 18 experiments. Differences between 2 d of FFW were -14 to +34 kg in the 10 experiments measuring FFW on 2 consecutive d. There was not a clear relationship between FFW and LFW; each weighing scenario had unique environmental conditions that led to different relationships. Differences in both beginning and ending BW were compounded when calculating ADG. Average daily gain was calculated for 15 of the experiments on the basis of either LFW or FFW. Differences between LFW and FFW ADG were -0.29 to +0.31 kg/d. The maximum ADG based on FFW was 1.62 kg/d. This large ADG, on a forage based diet, was likely due to changes in gut fill rather than tissue gain. These data suggest that handling cattle in a similar manner when weighing is more important than limiting intakes to decrease variance between weights. However, limiting intake before collection of beginning and ending BW better estimates empty body weight of cattle, allowing for a more accurate determination of actual body tissue weight gain. Measuring weights accurately becomes especially crucial when evaluating multiple components within a system (e.g., cornstalks to pasture to feedlot). Feeding a standard diet between these components of the system minimizes differences in gut fill due to treatment and allows for a more accurate determination of each componen
doi_str_mv 10.2527/jas.2013-6349
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1459229505</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3129388851</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1499-d3ee6b18996a1bf258b340c862c8f5ca4b4a3c370e6acdd55d23d6cd5b6ecfef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkE1LAzEQhoMoWKtH7wHP0Xxs0s1Rih-Fggh6DrOTpG5pd2uSVfrv3aWeZg7P-87wEHIr-L3UcvGwhXwvuVDMqMqekZnQUjMljDonM86lYHUt5CW5ynnLuZDa6hl5X-0PgCXTPlKgu3bfFhZD8G23oYfUY_BDCrTv6A-kFko7btB5CohDAjxOMYRSdoH-hnbzVbK4JhcRdjnc_M85-Xx--li-svXby2r5uGYoKmuZVyGYRtTWGhBNlLpuVMWxNhLrqBGqpgKFasGDAfReay-VN-h1YwLGENWc3J16xze_h5CL2_ZD6saTTlTaSmk11yPFThSmPucUojukdg_p6AR3kzU3WnOTNTdZU3-RS2C7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1459229505</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impacts of a limit-feeding procedure on variation and accuracy of cattle weights1</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Watson, A. K. ; Nuttelman, B. L. ; Klopfenstein, T. J. ; Lomas, L. W. ; Erickson, G. E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Watson, A. K. ; Nuttelman, B. L. ; Klopfenstein, T. J. ; Lomas, L. W. ; Erickson, G. E.</creatorcontrib><description>Cattle weights can be highly variable and are influenced by many factors, including time of weighing, ambient temperature, feed intake, and cattle handling. A protocol of limit feeding has been in use since the 1980s that was designed to reduce variation in gut fill due to differences in intakes. Cattle are penned and fed a 50% hay, 50% wet corn gluten feed or grain diet (DM basis) at an estimated 2% of BW for at least 5 d, after which weights are taken on 2 consecutive d and averaged for a limit-fed BW (LFW). For this analysis, full-fed weights (FFW) also were taken before the limit-feeding period while cattle had ad libitum intakes. Data from 18 experiments were used to analyze differences within 2-d LFW and between LFW and FFW. For 10 of the 18 experiments, FFW also were measured on 2 consecutive d. Cattle included in this summary were grazing cornstalks, smooth bromegrass pasture, Bermuda grass pasture, fescue pasture, native range, or in a dry lot on a 70% forage diet. The largest differences between FFW and LFW for individual cattle were -39 to +44 kg over all 18 experiments. Differences between 2 consecutive d of LFW were -23 to +24 kg for all 18 experiments. Differences between 2 d of FFW were -14 to +34 kg in the 10 experiments measuring FFW on 2 consecutive d. There was not a clear relationship between FFW and LFW; each weighing scenario had unique environmental conditions that led to different relationships. Differences in both beginning and ending BW were compounded when calculating ADG. Average daily gain was calculated for 15 of the experiments on the basis of either LFW or FFW. Differences between LFW and FFW ADG were -0.29 to +0.31 kg/d. The maximum ADG based on FFW was 1.62 kg/d. This large ADG, on a forage based diet, was likely due to changes in gut fill rather than tissue gain. These data suggest that handling cattle in a similar manner when weighing is more important than limiting intakes to decrease variance between weights. However, limiting intake before collection of beginning and ending BW better estimates empty body weight of cattle, allowing for a more accurate determination of actual body tissue weight gain. Measuring weights accurately becomes especially crucial when evaluating multiple components within a system (e.g., cornstalks to pasture to feedlot). Feeding a standard diet between these components of the system minimizes differences in gut fill due to treatment and allows for a more accurate determination of each component's contribution to the total system. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/jas.2013-6349</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Animal sciences ; Cattle ; Diet ; Experiments ; Nutrition ; Weight</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2013-11, Vol.91 (11), p.5507-5517</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Society of Animal Science Nov 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1499-d3ee6b18996a1bf258b340c862c8f5ca4b4a3c370e6acdd55d23d6cd5b6ecfef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1499-d3ee6b18996a1bf258b340c862c8f5ca4b4a3c370e6acdd55d23d6cd5b6ecfef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Watson, A. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nuttelman, B. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klopfenstein, T. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lomas, L. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, G. E.</creatorcontrib><title>Impacts of a limit-feeding procedure on variation and accuracy of cattle weights1</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>Cattle weights can be highly variable and are influenced by many factors, including time of weighing, ambient temperature, feed intake, and cattle handling. A protocol of limit feeding has been in use since the 1980s that was designed to reduce variation in gut fill due to differences in intakes. Cattle are penned and fed a 50% hay, 50% wet corn gluten feed or grain diet (DM basis) at an estimated 2% of BW for at least 5 d, after which weights are taken on 2 consecutive d and averaged for a limit-fed BW (LFW). For this analysis, full-fed weights (FFW) also were taken before the limit-feeding period while cattle had ad libitum intakes. Data from 18 experiments were used to analyze differences within 2-d LFW and between LFW and FFW. For 10 of the 18 experiments, FFW also were measured on 2 consecutive d. Cattle included in this summary were grazing cornstalks, smooth bromegrass pasture, Bermuda grass pasture, fescue pasture, native range, or in a dry lot on a 70% forage diet. The largest differences between FFW and LFW for individual cattle were -39 to +44 kg over all 18 experiments. Differences between 2 consecutive d of LFW were -23 to +24 kg for all 18 experiments. Differences between 2 d of FFW were -14 to +34 kg in the 10 experiments measuring FFW on 2 consecutive d. There was not a clear relationship between FFW and LFW; each weighing scenario had unique environmental conditions that led to different relationships. Differences in both beginning and ending BW were compounded when calculating ADG. Average daily gain was calculated for 15 of the experiments on the basis of either LFW or FFW. Differences between LFW and FFW ADG were -0.29 to +0.31 kg/d. The maximum ADG based on FFW was 1.62 kg/d. This large ADG, on a forage based diet, was likely due to changes in gut fill rather than tissue gain. These data suggest that handling cattle in a similar manner when weighing is more important than limiting intakes to decrease variance between weights. However, limiting intake before collection of beginning and ending BW better estimates empty body weight of cattle, allowing for a more accurate determination of actual body tissue weight gain. Measuring weights accurately becomes especially crucial when evaluating multiple components within a system (e.g., cornstalks to pasture to feedlot). Feeding a standard diet between these components of the system minimizes differences in gut fill due to treatment and allows for a more accurate determination of each component's contribution to the total system. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Animal sciences</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Weight</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotkE1LAzEQhoMoWKtH7wHP0Xxs0s1Rih-Fggh6DrOTpG5pd2uSVfrv3aWeZg7P-87wEHIr-L3UcvGwhXwvuVDMqMqekZnQUjMljDonM86lYHUt5CW5ynnLuZDa6hl5X-0PgCXTPlKgu3bfFhZD8G23oYfUY_BDCrTv6A-kFko7btB5CohDAjxOMYRSdoH-hnbzVbK4JhcRdjnc_M85-Xx--li-svXby2r5uGYoKmuZVyGYRtTWGhBNlLpuVMWxNhLrqBGqpgKFasGDAfReay-VN-h1YwLGENWc3J16xze_h5CL2_ZD6saTTlTaSmk11yPFThSmPucUojukdg_p6AR3kzU3WnOTNTdZU3-RS2C7</recordid><startdate>20131101</startdate><enddate>20131101</enddate><creator>Watson, A. K.</creator><creator>Nuttelman, B. L.</creator><creator>Klopfenstein, T. J.</creator><creator>Lomas, L. W.</creator><creator>Erickson, G. E.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131101</creationdate><title>Impacts of a limit-feeding procedure on variation and accuracy of cattle weights1</title><author>Watson, A. K. ; Nuttelman, B. L. ; Klopfenstein, T. J. ; Lomas, L. W. ; Erickson, G. E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1499-d3ee6b18996a1bf258b340c862c8f5ca4b4a3c370e6acdd55d23d6cd5b6ecfef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Animal sciences</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Weight</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Watson, A. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nuttelman, B. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klopfenstein, T. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lomas, L. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, G. E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Watson, A. K.</au><au>Nuttelman, B. L.</au><au>Klopfenstein, T. J.</au><au>Lomas, L. W.</au><au>Erickson, G. E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impacts of a limit-feeding procedure on variation and accuracy of cattle weights1</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2013-11-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>5507</spage><epage>5517</epage><pages>5507-5517</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Cattle weights can be highly variable and are influenced by many factors, including time of weighing, ambient temperature, feed intake, and cattle handling. A protocol of limit feeding has been in use since the 1980s that was designed to reduce variation in gut fill due to differences in intakes. Cattle are penned and fed a 50% hay, 50% wet corn gluten feed or grain diet (DM basis) at an estimated 2% of BW for at least 5 d, after which weights are taken on 2 consecutive d and averaged for a limit-fed BW (LFW). For this analysis, full-fed weights (FFW) also were taken before the limit-feeding period while cattle had ad libitum intakes. Data from 18 experiments were used to analyze differences within 2-d LFW and between LFW and FFW. For 10 of the 18 experiments, FFW also were measured on 2 consecutive d. Cattle included in this summary were grazing cornstalks, smooth bromegrass pasture, Bermuda grass pasture, fescue pasture, native range, or in a dry lot on a 70% forage diet. The largest differences between FFW and LFW for individual cattle were -39 to +44 kg over all 18 experiments. Differences between 2 consecutive d of LFW were -23 to +24 kg for all 18 experiments. Differences between 2 d of FFW were -14 to +34 kg in the 10 experiments measuring FFW on 2 consecutive d. There was not a clear relationship between FFW and LFW; each weighing scenario had unique environmental conditions that led to different relationships. Differences in both beginning and ending BW were compounded when calculating ADG. Average daily gain was calculated for 15 of the experiments on the basis of either LFW or FFW. Differences between LFW and FFW ADG were -0.29 to +0.31 kg/d. The maximum ADG based on FFW was 1.62 kg/d. This large ADG, on a forage based diet, was likely due to changes in gut fill rather than tissue gain. These data suggest that handling cattle in a similar manner when weighing is more important than limiting intakes to decrease variance between weights. However, limiting intake before collection of beginning and ending BW better estimates empty body weight of cattle, allowing for a more accurate determination of actual body tissue weight gain. Measuring weights accurately becomes especially crucial when evaluating multiple components within a system (e.g., cornstalks to pasture to feedlot). Feeding a standard diet between these components of the system minimizes differences in gut fill due to treatment and allows for a more accurate determination of each component's contribution to the total system. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.2527/jas.2013-6349</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2013-11, Vol.91 (11), p.5507-5517
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1459229505
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects Animal sciences
Cattle
Diet
Experiments
Nutrition
Weight
title Impacts of a limit-feeding procedure on variation and accuracy of cattle weights1
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T13%3A39%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impacts%20of%20a%20limit-feeding%20procedure%20on%20variation%20and%20accuracy%20of%20cattle%20weights1&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Watson,%20A.%20K.&rft.date=2013-11-01&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=5507&rft.epage=5517&rft.pages=5507-5517&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/jas.2013-6349&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3129388851%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1459229505&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true