4.0 Article

Phenotypic association between feed efficiency and feeding behavior, growth and carcass traits in Senepol cattle

出版社

REVISTA BRASILEIRA ZOOTECNIA BRAZILIAN JOURNAL ANIMAL SCI
DOI: 10.1590/S1806-92902017000100008

关键词

beef cattle; feed intake; residual feed intake

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to evaluate the associations between feed efficiency and feeding behavior, growth and carcass traits in Senepol cattle. A total of 137 animals were evaluated. Of these animals, 36 males were evaluated in a second test, totaling 173 records (initial age of 466 +/- 96 days and initial weight of 426 +/- 104 kg). Residual feed intake (RFI) was calculated as the difference between observed and expected dry matter intake, estimated by regression of dry matter intake on average daily gain and metabolic body weight (BW0.75), and the animals were classified as negative (high efficiency) and positive RFI (low efficiency). The mean RFI was -0.838 +/- 0.078 and 0.797 +/- 0.075 kg DM day(-1) for negative and positive RFI animals, respectively, with a difference of 1.63 kg dry matter day(-1). The dry matter intake of negative RFI animals, expressed as kg day(-1) and percentage of mean body weight, was 11.3% and 13.1% lower than that of positive RFI animals. Negative RFI animals spent less time at the feed bunk and ingested less dry matter per visit than positive RFI animals, but did not differ in terms of chest girth, scrotal circumference, or hip height. However, negative RFI animals had lower rump fat deposition (7.13 +/- 0.477 mm) than positive RFI animals (7.83 +/- 0.473 mm). The Spearman correlation between RFI estimated in the first and second tests was 0.69, indicating that RFI is consistent when evaluated during two different periods of the life of the animal. Senepol animals with low residual feed intake (high efficiency) deposit less subcutaneous rump fat, but this reduction is not accompanied by a reduction in backfat thickness and longissimus muscle area.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据